Skip to content

Britain Facing Energy Crisis–OFGEM Senior Executive

December 12, 2016

By Paul Homewood


h/t Philip Bratby




From the Telegraph:


Britain’s increasing reliance on "intermittent" renewable energy means that the country is facing an unprecedented supply crisis, a senior Ofgem executive has warned.

Andrew Wright, a senior partner at Ofgem and former interim chief executive, warned that households could be forced to pay extra to keep their lights on while their neighbours “sit in the dark” because “not everyone will be able to use as much as electricity as they want”.

He warned that in future richer customers will be able to “pay for a higher level of reliability” while other households are left without electricity.


Mr Wright said that because Britain has lost fuel capacity because of the closure of coal mines, there is now “much less flexibility” for suppliers.

In a stark warning about the future of energy supply in Britain, Mr Wright said that consumers could be forced to pay more if they want to ensure they always have power.

“At the moment everyone has the same network – with some difference between rural and urban – but this is changing and these changes will produce some choices for society,” he told a recent conference.

“We are currently all paying broadly the same price but we could be moving away from that and there will be some new features in the market which may see some choose to pay for a higher level of reliability.

“One household may be sitting with their lights on, charging their Tesla electric car, while someone else will be sitting in the dark."

Mr Wright, who Ofgem last night insisted was speaking in a “personal capacity” appeared to lay blame to any future supply issues on the recent focus on renewable energy.

He said: “The system we are all familiar with has some redundancy built into it. It was pretty straightforward and there was a supply margin, but increasing intermittency from renewable energy is producing profound changes to this system.

“We now have much less flexibility with the loss of fossil fuel capacity. Coal has been important, but this is disappearing.”



He added: “In the future not everyone will be able to use as much as electricity as they want, and there will be a need to re-write the rules.”

An Ofgem spokesman said: " Ofgem is fully committed to delivering secure supplies for all consumers now and in the future. This is our number one priority. This is why we have driven up network reliability standards and worked closely with Government to ensure secure energy supplies."

“In order to protect consumers every regulator has to look a possible future challenges. Mr Wright was talking at an University conference in a personal capacity and looking at possible issues that might or might not arise in 10-15 years time.”

Philip Hammond, the Chancellor, has previously said that Britain will need to invest "eye-wateringly large sums of money" just to keep the lights on.

The Chancellor put the cost at around £100 billion in the next 20 years to ensure the country meets its energy needs.


Coming from a senior member of OFGEM, this is utterly damning.

It is all very well OFGEM saying he is looking at 10 – 15 years ahead, but that is not that far away. And what is certain is that, if we are to prevent it happening, we need to be drastically revising our policies now.

  1. martinbrumby permalink
    December 12, 2016 11:21 am

    Bring it on.
    It will be interesting to see the social consequences and to guage how impressed are those left shivering in the dark, with the climate activists and their crony capitalist chums.
    And I suggest this is precisely why we are spending Billions on “smart” meters. Specifically to enable just this.
    I hear pitchforks being sharpened.

    • NeverReady permalink
      December 12, 2016 12:55 pm

      The idea of Smart meters has always been to introduce hourly variable tariffs and restriction of supply.

    • bushwalker permalink
      December 12, 2016 4:35 pm

      Wright is assuming that all users have “smart meters”. Those without sm’s can only be disconnected at the distribution transformer level which also disconnects the sm folk on the same circuit

  2. AlecM permalink
    December 12, 2016 11:35 am

    It’s wrong to consider this a 10 year horizon. In 2011 the then CEO of the NGC warned that by 2020 there would be no guaranteed Grid Supply for domestic premises. I had also worked this out and had warned Cameron’s government. This presumably is why Thicko Davey authorised, against advice from David McKay, diesel STOR in May 2012.

    The problem is that even now <3% of electricity comes from windmills, and it increases fossil fuel use. McKay wanted pump storage. That is impossible. However, there is another solution to the problem. Let's see what it is folks – this warning of rationing appears to be the start of the roll-out of that solution. Unless, of course, the carbon traders win and force out T. May to be replaced by their man, Greg Clarke?

    Hence this politics is getting very vicious, but the fact that the opportunistic climate fraudster Myles Allen is desperately seeking high ground suggests that the carbon Mafia is losing out as the pseudoscience is damned World-wide.

    Another clue is from Lord Monckton who advised Thatcher to believe this pseudoscience. He is covering his ar$e by claiming the positive feedback is much less than claimed by the IPCC However, he is a fool: there is almost infinite negative feedback over the whole planet – he made a bad mistake in the 1980s, as dd most who did not understand thermodynamics.

    As a final point, we also have Nicky Morgan, one of Cameron's privately educated bimbos who made her name partially on the climate fraud:

    ‘Raised a local resident’s concerns about climate change with the Energy Secretary – climate change is one of the most serious long-term economic threats that we face and I am pleased that the UK is taking a leading role in working to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and limit climate change to manageable levels. I have written to the Minister for further information about the Government’s commitment to tackling this problem.’

    All these woodlice are scurrying for cover now that T. May has apparently decided to junk fake IPCC science and its supporters. About bloody time. As for DC, anyone who imagined putting a B&Q windmill on his chimney would power his street and recruited first the crook Huhne then the Idiot Ed., deserves a good kicking by History

    • AlecM permalink
      December 12, 2016 12:23 pm

      Or worse……….

    • CheshireRed permalink
      December 12, 2016 12:26 pm

      Has Mrs May decided to ditch ‘climate science’ though? Last week her PMQ’s stand-in David Lidington re-emphasised the govt’s commitment to ‘reducing carbon’ and ‘tackling climate change’. I’ve said for years the big breakthrough in replacing the CC Act will only come when we have completely new decision-makers who aren’t tarred by previous climate-related policy. The previously non-political Trump is showing the way in the US but we’re years away from a similar leader over here.

      • AlecM permalink
        December 12, 2016 12:28 pm

        I suspect T. May, a professional fence sitter, has been emboldened by Trump.

    • HotScot permalink
      December 12, 2016 1:08 pm

      Whilst I can’t disagree with most of your comments, I think you’re being harsh on Monckton. He freely admits he was a believer until he was forced to look at the evidence by a client. That being the case, he is cleverly playing the field by not being accused, as far as possible, as just another climate denier nutter.

      His presentations are cleverly crafted to introduce himself as barely a lukewarmer. It relaxes his audiences and suppresses heckling as they perceive him being close to them, and almost convertible to the cause. Then he goes on to simply present data, usually qualified as IPCC’s own data, and decimates it.

      I used to hate the guy but when you realise what he’s doing, you begin to value him as, if you like, a 5th columnist. He suffered a vile attack when giving evidence to Congress on AGW. His status as a Lord was ridiculed by one aggressive Congressman, he couldn’t be a real Lord because he didn’t sit in the house of Lords. Monckton was shouted down by this odious character at which point Monckton just sat quietly with some dignity.

      Another Congressman intervened and gave Monckton the opportunity to respond at which point he very quietly, politely and calmly ripped the ignorant sod to shreds.

      Nor, do I believe Monckton needs to campaign around the world for climate scepticism, he’s wealthy enough to not bother. He may not be desperately likeable, despite his self-deprecating humour, but he get’s into places no conventional ‘denier’ climate scientist could and he comes across as entertaining, sincere and enthusiastic.

      • AlecM permalink
        December 12, 2016 1:23 pm

        When I wrote polite replies** to Monckton’s article on WUWT where he first publicised his modified feedback theory, he barred me.

        **Climate science has badly misinterpreted Planck then Bose and Einstein’s radiant theory, taken up by Goody in 1964. P, B and E were perfectly correct, but only for equilibrium between two emitters in a vacuum.

        With a finite gap between the emitters there is stored bidirectional energy transfer at the speed of light. However, a planet’s surface in radiant equilibrium with a GHG-containing atmosphere has no such gap. There is no such stored energy, no average radiant energy transfer for any IR band.

        I suspect he suddenly realised that he had when advisor to Mrs Thatcher made a bad basic mistake, perfectly obvious to any professional scientist willing to check ALL the previous assumptions.

        Read this to understand Planck’s 2nd Law of Thermodynamics’ reasoning:

        It is perfectly obvious why climate science has failed in its most basic task.

  3. December 12, 2016 11:39 am

    Coupled with the gas storage problems, it does not bode well if we have a really cold winter, either in the next two months or in the nest few years.

    • AlecM permalink
      December 12, 2016 11:42 am

      Agreed: that is another political factor I should have added.

      Now, if I were even more of a conspiracy freak I would be tempted to think this series of falling dominos was planned in advance!

    • Joe Public permalink
      December 12, 2016 2:58 pm

      @PB The storage ‘problems’ isn’t as bad as some would make out.

      Rough Storage Facility, whilst reduced, is still massive.

      There is detailed info “Rough gas storage undertakings review”

      Click to access Rough_gas_storage_undertakings_review_final_report.pdf

      The Statutory Security of Supply Report 2016 (27th Oct 2016) has more info

      Click to access 57327_HC_717_Print.pdf

    • Joe Public permalink
      December 12, 2016 3:17 pm


      To put the issue into perspective, even in the winter, extract from storage makes up only a small proportion of GB’s total supplies. Most is from linepack.

      On 4x days in winter 2015/16 demand exceeded 350 mcm / 3.675GWh.

      On the day of peak supply in winter 2015/16, gas *storage* provided its highest supply of the winter at 98 mcm. 1.078 TWh

      Day-to-day gas availability is available here:

      Gas stocks* as of *today* is 33.3TWh; Deliverability** is 1.58TWh

      *The volume of gas-in-storage at the Facility on the Gas Day. (Note: This excludes any gas held in the facility for the purpose of Operating Margins Gas).

      **The maximum amount of gas that can be withdrawn from the Storage Facility per day. N/A for LNG facilities

      For further perspective, Britain’s 4x pumped storage facilities <29GWh

  4. December 12, 2016 11:41 am

    Those with enough money will have stand-by generators: just like in most third-world countries, while the rest will get used to rolling power cuts and increased death rates.

    The fear campaigners have a lot to answer for: carbon dioxide has been accused, tried and found guilty without any provable evidence; apart from the Big Brother Computer and its dedicated believers.

    I wish that the pitchforks were likely to be sharpened, but the UK is far too accepting for that.

    • catweazle666 permalink
      December 12, 2016 6:10 pm

      “but the UK is far too accepting for that.”

      Not any more.

      That’s why we voted for Brexit.

      The times they are a’changing…

      • Jack Broughton permalink
        December 13, 2016 12:44 pm

        I think that that song was 1963…..

  5. TinyCO2 permalink
    December 12, 2016 11:41 am

    This is a double edged sword to take out both Left and Right. It’s a warning to the Right that we will suffer interrupted, expensive supplies and a warning to the Left that a basic utility will become the preserve of the rich. The public will be outraged either way.

    If we have shortages in the next year or two, the Conservatives could just about blame the Lib Dems and Labour but every month makes such a defence increasingly weak.

    • AlecM permalink
      December 12, 2016 11:43 am

      Agreed: T. May has to break cover NOW.

  6. December 12, 2016 12:11 pm

    It’s most strange. I cannot find any mention on the BBC of the most important news we have had about the cost of meeting the Climate Change Act and consequential energy supply problems. I wonder why the BBC is not all over this massive unfolding disaster that has been ongoing for nigh on ten years.

    • AlecM permalink
      December 12, 2016 12:20 pm

      The BBC is controlled by the eugenicists, one of whose leaders is David Attenborough**, so want to kill off 45 million people by restricting power consumption to the ‘sustainable level’. We must tell them that with no power, households won’t be able to see or hear the bloody programmes!

      **Look at of which DA is a patron, particularly the spreadsheet of sustainable populations. UK will lose 70%, the USA 50%. The collapse of society will be very scary, a bit like Cambodia under Pol Pot – Year Zero UK.

  7. CheshireRed permalink
    December 12, 2016 12:16 pm

    Is it me or is there suddenly a slew of climate fearmongering articles doing the rounds? Cod swimming north, arctic ice collapse (again!) and a big propaganda piece for Big Wind in the Guardian and BBC. Strangely they don’t mention this potentially disastrous energy shortfall, Peter Lilley’s bombshell report or Tom Kelly’s report that DECC helped to sit on for a year. Climate propaganda 101 as usual, then.

  8. A C Osborn permalink
    December 12, 2016 12:37 pm

    And on top of all the problems with supply we face and the costs involved we have this total incompetence.

    That’s right they don’t know where the £274M they have given away has gone.
    Current politics really is stranger than fiction.

  9. December 12, 2016 12:40 pm

    Both the UK and Australia are heading towards reliance on just one fuel: gas, very bad news for security, something that free markets don’t provide, because there is no money to be made from it. Security of supply needs diversity of fuels, so coal-fired power should be at least maintained at current levels, with replacement of closing plant, but that would require killing some sacred cows, in particular “low-carbon”, and “free-market”.

    • Joe Public permalink
      December 12, 2016 3:40 pm

      “Both the UK …..(is) heading towards reliance on just one fuel: gas, very bad news for security, ….”

      If only we had an abundant local supply entirely within our own control….. 😉

  10. Gerry, England permalink
    December 12, 2016 12:40 pm

    So the notion of rationing electricity breaks cover. Always was lurking there somewhere once you commit to a generating capacity that is less than your demand. And ‘smart’ meters – is it just me that thinks the word ‘smart’ now means something really stupid? – are part of the plan along with the connectivity of your white goods.

    With regard to timescales, if you consider just how long it takes to achieve the construction of a power station then the critical point will arrive very soon. The closure and wanton demolition of the coal plants is probably that point. They can’t be reopened if they are not there so something else needs to be built, and not more windmills obviously.

    • AlecM permalink
      December 12, 2016 12:45 pm

      The critical point was in 2008: government was warned at the time but the greenies stopped the proposed construction of 4 new coal plants.

      We now have nowhere conventional to go. The only hope is unconventional plus hoping the remaining coal plants won’t break down. If the latter happens, we’ll have to ration power and that means putting the inner cities under Martial Law to stop black marketeers taking over when there is no money or food.

      Think of Aleppo multiplied by a factor of perhaps 10. Also read H G Wells’ 1926 essay predicting all this.

    • TinyCO2 permalink
      December 12, 2016 1:07 pm

      To be fair to the guy I don’t think this is about promoting rationing but warning that if we don’t do something, that will be where we end up. And possibly a move against a rise of energy idiots at National Grid and the energy departments at Whitehall.

      • David Richardson permalink
        December 12, 2016 3:00 pm

        Yes it is difficult to decide Tiny whether he is on the right or wrong Hymn sheet (as far as his masters POV). Like you I am prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt – mainly because I tend to believe the cock-up theory instead of the conspiracy theory. BUT just as with the climate, much evidence is moving in the other direction now.

    • catweazle666 permalink
      December 12, 2016 6:19 pm

      “is it just me that thinks the word ‘smart’ now means something really stupid?”

      Depends on who you are.

      Smart motorways catch more than 1,000 speeding drivers a week

      • Gerry, England permalink
        December 13, 2016 10:40 am

        I never find them very ‘smart’ myself as you often can’t go the speed they show because of too much traffic and then when it is clear the limit is still 50 or 60, probably to raise some money from frustrated drivers. And so far there has been one fatality from a breakdown on a motorway with no hard shoulder.

      • catweazle666 permalink
        December 13, 2016 6:23 pm

        Smart enough if you’re coining in tens of thousands of pounds a week though Gerry.

        Surely you were under no illusion of who they were designed to benefit?

  11. December 12, 2016 12:49 pm

    Disgrace and we will see the weak, the elderly and the young die of cold. This in the 21st century. It is already happening in Germany where more than 400 died last winter. How many more will die at the hands of Merkel this year in a contemptible chase of the global warming myth? I am damn sure it will not happen in the USA under Trump.

    This is probably the final straw for me as far as the Conservatives go. To see Hammond and May blindly let this country go on with this is beyond belief.

    • AlecM permalink
      December 12, 2016 12:52 pm

      The excess death toll is far higher. In 2009 – 2010, it was ~55,000 in the UK. Normally, winter kills off an excess of ~40,000 vulnerable people compared with the average for the year.

      • mikewaite permalink
        December 12, 2016 1:59 pm

        It is not as if the Govt does not know the situation wrt energy poverty amongst many of the population , About a year ago charities reported that about 50% of pensioners were worried about heating costs and 1 in 3 can only afford to heat one room. The BBC today at 1.00pm is giving a lot of time to the care funding crisis due to council funding cuts and the introduction of the living wage .
        Good for it , but why does it not link the lack of money to the absurd and criminal waste of money on unreliable renewables ?( current power demand is >46GW , of which metered wind power is contributing just 1.6GW and yet no-one in Westminster notices , probably all at Secret Santa parties for the next 2 weeks ). After all there is only 1 pot of money – and it comes from us .

  12. December 12, 2016 1:56 pm

    But this has been known for at least seven years.

    ‘Demand for power from homes and businesses will exceed supply from the national grid within eight years, according to official figures.’

    Report date: 31 Aug 2009

    From that report…

    Greg Clark, the shadow climate and energy change secretary, said: “Britain faces blackouts because the Government has put its head in the sand about Britain’s energy policy for a decade. Over the next 10 years we need to replace one third of our generating capacity but Labour has left it perilously late, and has been forced to admit they expect power cuts for the first time since the 1970s.

    “The next government has an urgent task to accelerate the deployment of a new generating capacity, and to take steps to ensure that as a matter of national security there is enough capacity to provide a robust margin of safety.”

    How’s that ‘acceleration’ going now you’re the post holder Mr Clark?

  13. Dung permalink
    December 12, 2016 2:22 pm

    Strange that nobody is pointing out that much poorer countries than the UK are awash with energy? If electricity is short then politicians are to blame. I am hoping that politics in our country has been woken up by Brexit and that Climate Change is next 🙂

  14. Harry Passfield permalink
    December 12, 2016 2:31 pm

    I commented over at BH that my MP (the AG) had responded to a letter of mine about the Paris Accord. His take-away line was:

    Regardless of one’s views on climate change, decarbonising the UK’s energy supplies will reduce the exposure of our energy prices to movements in international fossil fuel prices. However, the Government has always been clear that this must be achieved at the lowest possible cost to consumers.

    I fear we are at the mercy of imbeciles parroting the green line fed to them by their minders. That entire paragraph is the longest oxymoron I have come across – to date.

    • bushwalker permalink
      December 12, 2016 4:10 pm

      Still, you have to admire the degree of obfuscation in just two sentences. What politicians don’t say is usually more important than what they do say.

  15. Dave Ward permalink
    December 12, 2016 2:45 pm

    “Bring it on”

    If – and it’s GREAT BIG IF – those of us “poor” people who stand to experience regular cuts were offered substantial reductions on our bills, I would go along with this. Like many, I have made quite a few provisions to cover such events, and could manage. However, the likelyhood of getting anything other than a cursory rebate is very small. It seems that the intention is to make unreliable power the “new norm”, with only the wealthy getting access 24/7. I expect to see howls of protest from “charities” and other similar groups about increasing inequality…

    • December 12, 2016 4:15 pm

      One idea already in the pipeline is to offer a reduced to tariff to people with smartmeters who sign up to have their freezers automatically turned off for (say) 30-40 minutes in the event of a spike in demand that can’t be met.

      Or to put it another way, pay more if you don’t want to do that deal.

      • It doesn't add up... permalink
        December 12, 2016 4:53 pm

        You have to pay more for the appliance that has the capability. When I last went shopping for domestic appliances I was quite horrified at the poor economics of owning the most eco-friendly offerings. The several hundred pound premium would never be paid off in energy savings over its life, and the interior space was heavily compromised. Still, I suppose if they charge £4/kWh for super peak, the payback might be sooner.

        It’s quite noticeable that demand side response has contributed very little indeed to the capacity auction.

  16. David Richardson permalink
    December 12, 2016 3:11 pm

    A country that runs low on energy in a world with excess supply can blame only politicians and those that advise them.

    The audit trail goes all the way from Climate Scientists who have exaggerated their understanding of what drives climate change (and it is always changing), which emboldens activists to pressurise politicians to make stupid decisions. This trail is complex as overlap and infiltration complicate each stage.

    Surely the policy decision making in the energy area over the last decade borders on negligence in public office?

  17. December 12, 2016 3:40 pm

    Smart meters – can they turn your power off? So your Energy Plan would cut you off when the cost/joule exceeded a set amount?

    • Joe Public permalink
      December 12, 2016 3:46 pm

      They’re more subtle – the cunning bastards ensure ‘compliance’ by ramping up the cost of kWh at peak times so it’s *your* choice/decision as to whether you can afford to keep stuff running.

      • Athelstan permalink
        December 12, 2016 4:12 pm

        The raptors running the energy companies owe it to their foreign owners and milking the British consumer is a piece of piss!!

        It is not widely know ‘cept by us that, all too frequently it is the poorest consumers who pay a disproportionately larger tariff, where in effect the less you use the more you pay also thus it is a greater part of their income given over to fuel costs.

        Effin around with tariffs at peak times will come to pass, the dogs dinner of supply and peak time demand, mixed in with…. remember the ridiculous amounts being paid during UK recent shave with capacity problems caused thru’ shut downs and it’s not as if we aren’t alone in this lunacy incidentally look at the names of the reporters in this link – are they taking the piss?

        Lets see though, if they dare, try cutting off the juice during Zfactor or Ingrrrrland matches and Strictly not dancing! Sniggering foreign companies might just try it and then lets see how May and her team get on then………………………

    • December 12, 2016 6:04 pm

      They can also charge you more when demand is high!

  18. December 12, 2016 3:40 pm

    Smart meters – can they turn your power off? So your Energy Plan would cut you off when the cost/joule exceeded a set amount?

    • Dave Ward permalink
      December 12, 2016 5:13 pm

      “Smart meters – can they turn your power off? “

      Further to Joe Public’s answer above – YES THEY CAN! I’m rather concerned how few people seem to be aware of this fact. It applies to both Gaz & Leccy (to use the crap terms employed by the publicity campaign) – indeed it’s a requirement in the specifications. I believe the original reason was to make it simple for power companies to cut customers off fro non-payment. No need to send an engineer out, and risk him being verbally (or physically) abused. As far as I’m aware, current models only have an “all or nothing” capability, but there is probably no technical reason why a dual output electricity version couldn’t be made. This would give suppliers the option of providing essential & non essential tariffs, with widely differing prices or supply power ratings. Essential might only power a few lights and the fridge, for instance. What is known is the development of “smart” appliances, which communicate with a smart meter – these can be instructed to switch off during peak demand, and/or offer lower rates for off-peak use.

      “So your Energy Plan would cut you off when the cost/joule exceeded a set amount?”

      Existing meters can be remotely configured to provide pre-payment tariffs – again a way of changing contracts for customers who can’t (or won’t) pay their bills. Another “win” for the energy companies.

      • Harry Passfield permalink
        December 12, 2016 5:27 pm

        Dave, I raised a complaint to the ASA because of the Gaz ad Leccy adverts. I claimed that hte adverts were misleading and contained a false premise. They dismissed the complaint saying that most people would understand the main drift of the ads. Perhaps other people might fee the need to complain as well.

      • Gerry, England permalink
        December 13, 2016 10:57 am

        There are already cases of faulty meters turning the supply off. And that makes them a hacker’s dream as dumping lots of users off the grid will cause it to collapse as much as a surge in demand would.

  19. Mr GrimNasty permalink
    December 12, 2016 3:50 pm

    Yes of course smart meters were primarily intended to actively manage demand on a limited supply rather than let you know what electricity you are using instantaneously/have accurate bills.

    This will either be by charging much more at certain times (forcing some people to turn off) or actually cutting/rationing power to the proles.

  20. Dung permalink
    December 12, 2016 3:50 pm

    Right through Cameron’s disasterous period in power, one thing he constantly got wrong was priorities. Cameron was constantly at the mercy of those who filled his head with ‘big ideas’ such as HS1 and 2 and in particular leading the world in fighting climate change. He was also let into the ‘big secret’ that action on climate change was a smokescreen and that he personally could help set global targets for the new and real priority of living within our means/sustainability.
    With such huge responsibilities entrusted personally to him, Cameron forgot some tried and trusted beliefs such as ‘the first responsibility of any government is the defence of the realm’ (amongst other things). One of the biggest problems for governments is the matter of priorities, how do we spend our resources best?
    Cameron has got his priorities wrong from start to finish, so much so that we are now considering new taxation to pay for basic social care we have a Royal Navy incapable of fulfilling some of its most basic functions but we can spend £300Billion on climate change and £56Billion on HS1 and HS2.
    Your turn Teresa?

  21. Dung permalink
    December 12, 2016 3:53 pm

    A smart meter gets installed in my house over my dead body!

    • Athelstan permalink
      December 12, 2016 4:16 pm

      Excellent stuff, Dung, I am of the same opinion, to a word.

    • December 12, 2016 4:18 pm

      Then they will want to charge you more for NOT having a smartmeter 😦

      • December 12, 2016 4:48 pm

        I would be inclined to turn on my high power oven at peak times, and hang the expense.

      • Athelstan permalink
        December 13, 2016 12:18 am

        so be it.

  22. Dave Ward permalink
    December 12, 2016 9:22 pm

    @ Harry Passfield December 12, 2016 5:27 pm

    I had pretty much the same experience when I complained about Renault’s TV advert for their “Zoe” electric car. The usual bullshit about “Zero Emissions” was included, with NO qualifier that this only meant “Zero Emissions AT THE POINT OF USE”. The ASA dismissed my complaint, citing an earlier ruling regarding the Nissan Leaf. Their reasoning was that most people would realise that the battery would need to be charged from fossil fuel sources!

    • Gerry, England permalink
      December 13, 2016 10:55 am

      I bet some virtue signalling eco nut will claim that they are with a green energy supplier so their electricity only comes from renewable sources. Yes, they are that stupid that at times you wish breathing wasn’t automatic.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: