If the UK leaves the EU, will the nominal voltage be changed back to 240v?

[ban-all-sheds]

Given that the legislation has already changed from 240V +/-6% to 230V +10/-6%, what makes you think it would not be changed again if the proposal to adopt 230V +/-10% went ahead?

Nothing - I'm just pointing out that the xenophobic assumption that we would be forced to use some sub-standard European electricity instead of our traditional British stuff is just a xenophobic assumption.

In fact, as the legislation is setting out the legal requirements for the supply standard, how could 230V +/-10% actually be adopted as an official supply standard without the legislation changing again?

Easily. With the disclaimer that IANAL, what about something like

"Member states shall require electricity generators and distributors to ensure that the phase to neutral voltage at customer's supply terminals does not fall outside the range 230V ± 10%"?

And what of the legislative change which already took place on January 1, 1995?

What of it?

You really do seem to think that a regulation specifying a minimum performance prohibits that minimum being exceeded.

 

[JohnW2]

And what of the legislative change which already took place on January 1, 1995?

What of it? You really do seem to think that a regulation specifying a minimum performance prohibits that minimum being exceeded.

What I don't know, and what you probably don't know, either, is to what extent (if any) UK suppliers 'took advantage' of that relaxation in requirements by allowing some supplies to fall in voltage to level would have have not been permitted under previous regulations. IF they did significantly take advantage of that, then there is clearly a risk that they would respond similarly to a further future relaxation by reducing the level of their 'performance' even further.

Kind Regards, John

 

[PBC_1966]

Given that the legislation has already changed from 240V +/-6% to 230V +10/-6%, what makes you think it would not be changed again if the proposal to adopt 230V +/-10% went ahead?

Nothing - I'm just pointing out that the xenophobic assumption that we would be forced to use some sub-standard European electricity instead of our traditional British stuff is just a xenophobic assumption.

So you're going to adopt the ridiculous "It must just be xenophobia" line now. And "we need a common European standard because we need a common European standard," just for the sake of being able to say "Everything has been harmonized across Europe."

That really says all we need to know about why you seem so determined to defend an unnecessary change so vehemently.

In fact, as the legislation is setting out the legal requirements for the supply standard, how could 230V +/-10% actually be adopted as an official supply standard without the legislation changing again?

Easily. With the disclaimer that IANAL, what about something like

"Member states shall require electricity generators and distributors to ensure that the phase to neutral voltage at customer's supply terminals does not fall outside the range 230V ± 10%"?

That reads like an EU Directive though, and this is supposedly a CENELEC thing. Or are you suggesting that if individual nations decide not to go along with a common CENELEC standard that the EU should step in and demand it? If so, then surely you are aware of the fact that such an EU Directive imposes a requirement on the members of this "EU Club" to transpose that directive into national legislation? So ultimately, the legislation would change again.

You really do seem to think that a regulation specifying a minimum performance prohibits that minimum being exceeded.

Of course it doesn't - Which is the whole point I've been trying to make about there being no need to have changed the U.K.'s specification from a lower limit of 225 to a lower limit of 216V (approx.).

But if the required standard is relaxed, that leaves it open for the supply companies to take advantage of that relaxed standard, which would result in the U.K. having a more poorly regulated supply than it used to.

What I don't know, and what you probably don't know, either, is to what extent (if any) UK suppliers 'took advantage' of that relaxation in requirements by allowing some supplies to fall in voltage to level would have have not been permitted under previous regulations. IF they did significantly take advantage of that, then there is clearly a risk that they would respond similarly to a further future relaxation by reducing the level of their 'performance' even further.

Exactly.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

So you're going to adopt the ridiculous "It must just be xenophobia" line now.

There is a considerable amount of that at work here.

And "we need a common European standard because we need a common European standard," just for the sake of being able to say "Everything has been harmonized across Europe."

That really says all we need to know about why you seem so determined to defend an unnecessary change so vehemently.

I believe that there should be a common standard for electricity supplies across "Europe". Like you, I believe that that would be a good thing. Unlike you I don't see why we should not try to get to that position even though we have a legacy of differing standards.

I believe that it is in the interests of manufacturers and consumers for it to be guaranteed via regulatory standards that they can make, or buy, equipment in the certain knowledge that it will be compatible with the supply in every country in "Europe". So it is essential that xV±y% be the same in every "European" country, for if it is not then manufacturers and consumers cannot get that certainty.

It is not an unnecessary change.

That reads like an EU Directive though, and this is supposedly a CENELEC thing.

Well you were the one who brought up legislation. I just made that suggested rule up to illustrate possible wording. I can't see why "member states" could not be members of CENELEC in a CENELEC regulation context.

Or are you suggesting that if individual nations decide not to go along with a common CENELEC standard that the EU should step in and demand it?

Why not?

Most people would, I imagine, find it ridiculously unacceptable for the supply in Surrey to be different from the supply in Sussex, (or in Maine vs Massachusetts), so that manufacturers could not make common products and consumers could not use in Surrey something bought in Sussex.

I see no reason why the same should not apply across "Europe".

If so, then surely you are aware of the fact that such an EU Directive imposes a requirement on the members of this "EU Club" to transpose that directive into national legislation? So ultimately, the legislation would change again.

There is no reason why there could not be a directive which places limits on what member states may have in their own ESQCR equivalents. Countries not being allowed to make their standards more expansive than 230V ± 10% would not mean that a country could not make their standard 230V ± 5% if that's what they wanted.

But if the required standard is relaxed, that leaves it open for the supply companies to take advantage of that relaxed standard, which would result in the U.K. having a more poorly regulated supply than it used to.

What I don't know, and what you probably don't know, either, is to what extent (if any) UK suppliers 'took advantage' of that relaxation in requirements by allowing some supplies to fall in voltage to level would have have not been permitted under previous regulations. IF they did significantly take advantage of that, then there is clearly a risk that they would respond similarly to a further future relaxation by reducing the level of their 'performance' even further.

Exactly.

Hands up all those who think that if the suppliers wanted the ESQCR to be amended in the interests of their shareholders that it would not happen.

 

[JohnW2]

What I don't know, and what you probably don't know, either, is to what extent (if any) UK suppliers 'took advantage' of that relaxation in requirements by allowing some supplies to fall in voltage to level would have have not been permitted under previous regulations. IF they did significantly take advantage of that, then there is clearly a risk that they would respond similarly to a further future relaxation by reducing the level of their 'performance' even further.

Hands up all those who think that if the suppliers wanted the ESQCR to be amended in the interests of their shareholders that it would not happen.

As far as I can make out, the last change in CENELEC limits resulted in a simultaneous, or near-simultaneous, "co-incidental" change in ESQCR to identical limits to the new CENELEC ones.

Kind Regards, John

 

[winston1]

Most people would, I imagine, find it ridiculously unacceptable for the supply in Surrey to be different from the supply in Sussex, (or in Maine vs Massachusetts), so that manufacturers could not make common products and consumers could not use in Surrey something bought in Sussex.

Well it was like that when I was young. Products had voltage selectors fitted to them and sometimes an AC/DC selector. Bot these days even that would not be necessary in many cases. Much equipment can run on 100 to 240v.

 

[stillp]

As far as I can make out, the last change in CENELEC limits resulted in a simultaneous, or near-simultaneous, "co-incidental" change in ESQCR to identical limits to the new CENELEC ones.

Kind Regards, John

The change to the ESQCR limits did not result from the CENELEC standard.

 

[JohnW2]

As far as I can make out, the last change in CENELEC limits resulted in a simultaneous, or near-simultaneous, "co-incidental" change in ESQCR to identical limits to the new CENELEC ones.

The change to the ESQCR limits did not result from the CENELEC standard.

That's why I said "co-incidental" Do you think that a similar co-incidence might arise if/when the CENELEC requirements for the UK change to 230V ±10% ?

Kind Regards, John.

 

[PBC_1966]

I believe that there should be a common standard for electricity supplies across "Europe".

But why does an existing national standard have to be relaxed, when it already satisfies the requirements of that proposed common standard? The only explanation you seem to have for that "Is so that we can say it's the same."

I believe that it is in the interests of manufacturers and consumers for it to be guaranteed via regulatory standards that they can make, or buy, equipment in the certain knowledge that it will be compatible with the supply in every country in "Europe".

But in what way would this nominal 230V equipment which will work satisfactorily down to 207V not work on a supply which never drops (or is never supposed to drop) below 216V? Or below 225V for that matter?

So it is essential that xV±y% be the same in every "European" country, for if it is not then manufacturers and consumers cannot get that certainty.

In terms of specifying the range of voltages over which equipment will operate, yes. But that doesn't mean that the supply has to be specified to the same wide range.

That reads like an EU Directive though, and this is supposedly a CENELEC thing.

Well you were the one who brought up legislation. I just made that suggested rule up to illustrate possible wording. I can't see why "member states" could not be members of CENELEC in a CENELEC regulation context.

O.K., but as the existing U.K. legislation already demands a supply of 230V +10/-6%, it would already satisfy any agreement with CENELEC to maintain supplies within 230V +/-10% anyway, so what does it matter? The official (as in legally mandated) supply standard would still be 230V +10/-6%.

Most people would, I imagine, find it ridiculously unacceptable for the supply in Surrey to be different from the supply in Sussex, (or in Maine vs Massachusetts), so that manufacturers could not make common products and consumers could not use in Surrey something bought in Sussex.

I see no reason why the same should not apply across "Europe".

Well, as you're obviously aware it took decades for the U.K. to achieve the 240V +/-6% standard nationwide. You want to be sure that all equipment sold in Europe after whatever date is designed to work satisfactory on anything from 207 - 253 volts, then fine, that could be done. But that's no reason why the existing supply standards have to be widened to cover that same range, so long as they already guarantee a voltage which is within that range.

The only possible issue as far as the existing U.K. standard was concerned was that tiny bit at the upper range between 253 and 254.4 volts, which if really considered necessary could have been addressed in a different way for the few places affected.

There is no reason why there could not be a directive which places limits on what member states may have in their own ESQCR equivalents. Countries not being allowed to make their standards more expansive than 230V ± 10% would not mean that a country could not make their standard 230V ± 5% if that's what they wanted.

And if the U.K. had decided to tighten its standard to 240V +/-5%, that would also entirely satisfy the requirement to deliver 230V +/-10%.

 

[stillp]

If the generators and distributors lobby for a change in both, yes, unless the equipment manufacturers are successful in opposing them.
Edit: this was a reply to JohnW2's post above regarding 'co-incidence'.

 

[stillp]

Most people would, I imagine, find it ridiculously unacceptable for the supply in Surrey to be different from the supply in Sussex, (or in Maine vs Massachusetts), so that manufacturers could not make common products and consumers could not use in Surrey something bought in Sussex.

Well it was like that when I was young. Products had voltage selectors fitted to them and sometimes an AC/DC selector. Bot these days even that would not be necessary in many cases. Much equipment can run on 100 to 240v.

They were a common cause of failure too!

 

[stillp]

But why does an existing national standard have to be relaxed, when it already satisfies the requirements of that proposed common standard?

Which national standard has been relaxed?

 

[PBC_1966]

The change to the ESQCR limits did not result from the CENELEC standard.

From the explanatory note in the legislative amendment, my emphasis:

These Regulations amend regulation 30 of the Electricity Supply Regulations 1988 (“the 1988 Regulations”) to require every supplier of low voltage electricity to consumers to supply, unless otherwise agreed between the supplier and the consumer, at 230 volts (reduced from 240 volts) between the phase and neutral conductors at the supply terminals, or at a voltage not exceeding ten per cent above (increased from six per cent) or six percent below that voltage. These amendments implement the first transitional stage for European harmonisation of nominal voltages and voltage tolerance ranges proposed in CENELEC (European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardisation) harmonisation document HD 472 S1: 1988 entitled Nominal voltages for low voltage public electricity supply systems and published in the United Kingdom by the British Standards Institution as BS 7697: 1993

 

[JohnW2]

If the generators and distributors lobby for a change in both, yes, unless the equipment manufacturers are successful in opposing them. ... Edit: this was a reply to JohnW2's post above regarding 'co-incidence'.

Thanks - since the equipment manufacturers do not seem to have prevented it happening last time, one imagines that there is probably a good chance that they won't succeed 'next time'.

In any event, won't most equipment manufacturer's want their equipment to be saleable/usable throughout Europe - in some of which countries the 230V -10% permitted minimum supply voltage already applies?

Kind Regards, John

 

[PBC_1966]

Which national standard has been relaxed?

The one which formerly required delivered voltage in the U.K. to be 240V +/-6%.