Smart meters could soon cost you a whole lot more
By Paul Homewood
h/t Philip Bratby
I was going to write about this, but Ross Clark has beaten me to it!
What remarkable power climate change has to turn the usual rules of fairness on their head. The poor pay the taxes and the wealthy get subsidised. It has happened with electric cars, where well-off early adopters were handed grants of £4,000 to buy a new vehicle – as well as being excused fuel duty and road tax, essentially freeing them from having to make any contribution to the upkeep of roads. It has happened with heat pumps – whose owners have enjoyed years of subsidies, the latest manifestation of which is £7,500 in upfront grants.
Surge pricing is a desperate solution to manage demand rather than maintain supply
The next phase will be even more painful for the poor and even more rewarding for the wealthy. The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero has put forward proposals to equip smart meters and electric appliances with technology to allow Uber-style surge pricing for electricity, where the price of power will vary on a half-hourly basis. Under the new system, there would be little warning of when prices would change, unlike the Economy 7 tariff, which has been around for decades and offers consumers cheaper electricity at night.
The reason for the new system is the intermittency of wind and solar, which the government and the green energy industry in general have failed to solve. Technologies for storing energy remain horribly expensive, or they have not yet even been proven on a commercial scale. Surge pricing is a desperate solution to manage demand rather than maintain supply. How much will prices have to vary in order to persuade people to turn off appliances when little wind and solar energy is being produced? It would require hugely punitive tariffs. This is the scale of the problem: Britain already has enough wind and solar capacity – theoretically – to meet Britain average power demand of 37 gigawatts. But in some weather conditions – namely calm winter evenings – that can fall away to less than one gigawatt.
Ross hits the nail on the head.
Fiddling around with peak prices won’t make the slightest bit of difference to peak demand. People are not going to rearrange their lives to save a few pence here and there.
To cut demand, prices will need to be punitive.
Moreover, we are not talking about the sort of variable tariffs currently on the market, such as Octopus Agile which offer variable prices for prearranged times of day.
Surge pricing can change every half hour, so very few people will even be aware prices are changing, never mind being able to do anything about it.
We are likely to end up in a situation where people automatically switch all appliances off whenever there is the slightest risk of price hikes.
The days of cheap, reliable energy are over.
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
In this Alice in Wonderland world, we are continually told by the industry that wind solar power provide increased energy security. How they get away with these lies is beyond me. No smart anything (apart from humans) in my property.
Not just “increased energy security” but electricity “seven times cheaper than gas!” (Based, of course, on gas prices just after the Nordstream pipeline accidentally got blown up.)
There is no lie so blatant, nor so absurd, that the venal and malicious Reality-Deniers will not trot it out. Again and again and again.
Seven times, amateurs, these scoundrels were saying nine times ‘(article updated 24/8/2022)’. Spot gas plus fake wind auction prices.
‘(Update 24/08/2022: The article was updated with the latest power prices, which have risen significantly.)‘
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-record-low-price-for-uk-offshore-wind-is-four-times-cheaper-than-gas/
Seem to remember ‘Presuming Ed’ Miliband using nine times lie too.
Gas spot price went negative some time after that (October) so that must make electricity more than infinitely more expensive.
https://news.metal.com/newscontent/101982927/european-natural-gas-prices-dropped-astonishingly-to-negative-zone-but-are-likely-to-rebound-shortly/
People are not going to rearrange their lives to save a few pence here and there. (from article)
Some people in the UK are already changing their pattern of use of electricity to save a few pence here and there ( and to “help the planet” )
The UK’s contribution to total human emissions is about 1%. Anything the UK does will not make a jot of difference to global emissions levels. Switching off appliances even less so. We need reliable abundant electricity supply and so called renewables arent it.
By the way CO2 is vital to life on earth getting rid of CO2 will kill all life on earth.
it would be very useful to have a recap on smart meters and pricing. Can customers be forced to have a smart meter, for example and what happens to pricing if they don’t.
I am with Scottish Power and because I have refused many times to have a ‘smart’ meter fitted I cannot take advantage of their cheapest tariffs-this is stated against these cheaper tariffs.
Not sure how this discrimination stands up wrt to the many anti discriminatory laws now in force.Perhaps it needs some one with means or clout to take this to court and see what the legal position is?
Discrimination is sadly rife in this country especially regarding the law. If someone breaks the law by “protesting” in the road and blocking me going about my legitimate business, they get off “Scot-Free”. But, if I get out of my vehicle and physically remove them to allow me to go about my legitimate business, then I get the book thrown at me.
Which means that those unfortunate enough to have smart meters on them will subsidise those who don’t have them?
We will all be priced into having one sooner or later
The power companies are not the most reliable when it comes to taking your money .
Scottish Power got caught out for overcharging a lot of customers .https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/publications/scottishpower-pay-ps15m-overcharging-customers
So we should probably expect a lot more rip-offs to come from this whole idea .
Mr Epping Blogger has beat me to it, I dont have nor do I intend to have a ‘smart’ meter.
What will happen to me.
I did save some money the other week as we had two 12 hr power cuts, which gave the Coleman stove something to think about.
So let’s be clear about this – first we are told that Wind and Solar are going to make Energy so cheap and abundant that we will need to leave everything running at 11 just to use it up…………now we are being told that in order to conserve Energy which due to its unforeseen tendency to be intermittent and therefore not always available, we will see prices rise to decrease demand, but the fact is that the “surge” periods are predicable- they are breakfast, lunch and evening meal- then we have peak viewing times for TV.
Do you really believe that charging £1 say at 1630hrs, then increasing it to £2 from 1700hrs, then decreasing it at 1730hrs and increasing it at 1800hrs will happen, with current tech and the unbridled avarice of the “Providers”, errors will be made on a frequency unseen before, whilst increases will be whacked thru immediately, decreases may be missed and as these increases/decreases will not be advised before the switch goes UP/Down, how will YOU know that XYZ Energy is not charging surge rates for non-surge periods, and don’t think for one second that the Ombudsman or Goverment dept is going to help, they want to bleed as much as possible from the cartel that is Energy U.K.
So the pattern will be people will be charged a bunch in the last half-hour preceding power outages. You’ll still have the outages, AND a big power bill.
. . . but they’ll have it soon. Did someone in government think solar intermittency would be solved?
Solar will fall away every evening.
I’m guessing there are a lot of people like me who might fit into what I would term ‘The Silent Majority’.
We are well aware that the Climate Crisis has been dreamt up by a bunch of nerds who are being paid fortunes to brainwash us.
Most of us have no intention whatsoever of ever fitting a Smart Meter, or useless solar panels that don’t work in the winter, or solar panels that don’t work when the sun doesn’t shine, or heat pumps which are noisy and don’t provide sufficient heat or electric cars which are prohibitively expensive and can catch fire and only do half the claimed mileage!
We don’t say much but without our support the zero carbon fraudsters have zero chance of ever persuading us that we should follow their directives. They will try to introduce new laws to take away our freedoms and turn this country into a police state but the silent majority will prevail and, without saying anything, will eventually win the day
The “Silent Majority” have been incredibly quiet if the petition on Net Zero is anything to go by. When I signed it on 18 Mar 24 there were just over 3,000 signatures. Having just checked, this has only increased to 9, 243.
See: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/657353
Knew nothing about this until I read your post.Have just signed but numbers still very poor.
I’ve just signed it- can I suggest you send out a fresh reminder solely about this petition. Hopefully it will encourage more people to sign and the target numbers will soon be achieved
9258, wake up people!!
We do have a major problem inasmuch as the marketing campaign for the Climate Change/Net Zero brainwashing is the biggest we have ever seen, bigger than major international giants like Coca Cola, Red Bull, BP and every other major enterprise and is backed up by China, left wing billionaires, the Met Office, the majority of the media , major newspapers and all the universities worldwide.
By comparison, coverage of the message from the opponents of Net Zero is minute and most of the media, newspapers and universities will not allow anyone opposing the Net Zero mantra to be published- almost to the point where it is a complete shut out.
Despite this, I do believe that there is a huge silent majority who can’t afford electric cars, solar panels, heat pumps etc and have no intention of ever being railroaded into using them. The logistics of replacing fossil fuels are so unworkable that the zero carbon nutters will eventually fail because the silent majority simply will not play ball and net zero couldn’t be delivered even if they did because of the simple facts we all know. When the sun doesn’t shine, when the wind doesn’t blow, renewables will be exposed as being totally unreliable and undeliverable and eventually politicians will have no option but to re-jig the whole agenda.
By
It’s not going to work out for you, MichaelJane.
The silent majority will remain silent, in hopes the alligator eats them last. If they were going to speak up, they would have already.
and eventually politicians will have no option but to re-jig the whole agenda.
If the house of the believers does tumble down then there is a logistical issue in the UK with rebuilding the house with thermal generation i.e. it will take years.
I guesstimate 10 years (or less) to build 30GW of thermal generaton if an “emergency” is declared. There is an historical precedent in the UK for similar construction capacity (pdf from gov.uk)
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/649c1bfd2caa3e00133e601b/UK_Electricity_capacity_and_generation_by_fuel_between_1920_and_2020.pdf
^^
Graph on page 2 of the pdf
I detest net zero but will not be signing the petition. The public have not yet suffered the inevitable consequences of relying on renewables and, as everyone here rightly says, are subject to an endless stream of dishonest propaganda pushing the proposition that achieving net zero is practicable and will be pretty painless. There is a real risk that a referendum on it would have the result neither you nor I want.
Some wise words- the zero carbonites have infiltrated every layer of our society including schools, universities, the media in all its forms and every level of local and national government and the marketing campaigns to support them have been more thorough than anything else we have ever seen. A lot of people have been brainwashed by the unceasing propaganda and you can be assured that the zero carbonites would ramp up their spending to even greater heights in advance of any referendum. If they won the referendum which could happen, there would be no going back.
What will defeat them is the simple fact that renewables simply won’t work and the the majority of people simply do not have the money to buy new electric cars or to fit solar panels or heat pumps- it is only the elite very wealthy people who can afford these things. You have only got to look around and see who has these expensive luxuries at the moment to confirm that not many ordinary people have them and they will never have them because they never will have enough money.
I call these people the silent majority- they won’t say much but they won’t be railroaded into buying things they can’t afford either.
Load Shedding a la South Africa coming soon.
This proves how bad the political elite really are non of our MPs are fit for purpose we should all vote with our feet and not vote at the next election for any of them, the government should allow the energy companies to purchase the cheapest generation with long term contracts like we use to have before 2005. People Should remember that the labour government set us down this path saying that having an energy market for generation would keep the prices for consumers low, WHAT A LIE this turned out to be
“we should all vote with our feet and not vote at the next election for any of them,”
NO !!
1,000s of people died so we could have a vote.
Every one should go to the polling station & write on their ballot paper
‘None of the above’
This will then count as a ‘protest vote’ and be counted and recorded separately by the returning officer.
https://www.votenone.org.uk/protest_votes_count.html
I agree as it shows that you are not apathetic.
It’s little short of obscene
It will be chaos because renewables are chaotically intermittent and whilst there may be demand peaks, although these may change with ev charging overnight, there is no knowing when electricity will be abundant or in short supply and for how long. So unforeseen rolling blackouts will be required to ensure demand matches supply and prevent total grid collapse.
There is no plan, even by 2050 for any electricity storage.
Those lucky enough will be able to run generators although I expect they will be banned.
The result will be chaos, impoverishment, social disharmony and a massive increase in criminality, all deliberately planned features of the Net Zero Strategy.
I am afraid that both Ross Clark’s article and many the comments here are simply confusing a variety of different factors, some of which have nothing to do with solar and wind generation.
Most important, variants of surge pricing are quite common around the world and have been for more than 30 years. We were on a surge pricing tariff 30 years ago when living in Washington DC. It was devised to deal with peaks of electricity demand due to air conditioning on the hottest days of the year – a common problem in hot climates. Since meeting covering peaks was very expensive, a variant of surge pricing was employed in combination with an arrangement to disconnect the air conditioning unit automatically for limited periods – a maximum of 2 or 3 hours. The timing was entirely predictable and announced on local news. If you didn’t want that loss of control, then you could pay the surge price or go on a higher fixed tariff.
It seems to me that the core problems now are: (a) an almost complete loss of trust in the behaviour and competence of both governments and regulator; (b) ditto but even worse for energy suppliers; and (c) an absurd overselling of what surge pricing can achieve – and, indeed, what it is. What is known as dynamic pricing is completely normal in most of Scandinavia plus Spain – and is becoming more common in the rest of Europe. Many businesses in the UK have been on dynamic tariffs for more than a decade. The notion that it is a hidden conspiracy against consumers is absurd.
Everyone seems to forget that in the UK, smart meters can’t be controlled over the electricity network as there is no 2-way communication. In principle, it might be possible to control smart meters via the wireless network, but it would mean completely redesigning what are currently upstream reporting protocols. Also, there is no capability to control in-house devices separately. Even the most stupid regulators or energy suppliers know that switching off the supply to a house remotely is a recipe for disaster and would lead to endless law suits – consider the consequences for home dialysis patients, etc. And if someone were stupid enough to want to do that to save energy, it can already be done at the sector level – i.e. groups of houses. That is merely a variant on rolling blackouts.
The core point is that to be economically viable and socially acceptable, surge or dynamic pricing has to be adopted by consent – and even then devices have to be automatically controlled. In the US surge pricing controls are almost entirely restricted to air conditioning because that is the biggest component of summer peak electricity demand and there is no disaster – maybe a bit of discomfort – if the air conditioning is switched off for a few hours in the late afternoon or evening.
Don’t believe the over-hyped nonsense put out by proponents of such ideas, but equally many of the arguments put forward by their opponents verge on the hysterical. Please, at least, take the time to understand what is technically possible and commercially sensible.
[citation needed]
I can’t find anything on the i’net about it. Searches for surge pricing get surge protector responses. Was it called “surge” pricing?
I never heard of it, and I was deep into power cost management in the SE US. Was this for commercial customers (not residential)?
Our factories paid demand charges to the power companies, so the sort of thing you are talking about – demand management with larger customers – is very real. “Capacity to consume” was the basis of demand charges. Based on annual peak draw.
I was trying to keep things simple and translate to current terminology. As you note, surge pricing wasn’t then and isn’t now a standard term in the industry. It was a variant of what would be called an interruptible tariff but for residential customers. What we call dynamic pricing tariffs in Europe are usually referred to as time of use or time of day tariffs.
Our supplier was PEPCO and they had agreed with the DC & Maryland regulators that instead of investing in new peaking plant they would provide incentives to encourage both business and domestic customers to accept voluntary load-shedding during periods of peak demand. Such arrangements weren’t unusual at the time. To be on such a tariff required a special meter with the air conditioning unit connected to a separate power circuit that would pass through control signals from the utility. Akin to a combined regular & white (Economy 7) meter in the UK. The fact that PEPCO was willing to do all this shows how keen they (or the regulators) were to shed peak loads rather than building new plants which were used for 100-200 hours per year.
The UK’s tariff structure is extremely unsophisticated relative to many other countries. In much of southern Europe customers pay a fixed charge based on maximum demand – 5 kW or whatever – with automatic disconnection if the limit is exceeded.
With all due respect Gordon, you clearly do not know what you are talking about. You claim –
“Everyone seems to forget that in the UK, smart meters can’t be controlled over the electricity network as there is no 2-way communication.”
So how come supply can be remotely disconnected on Smart Meters?
“If you have a smart energy meter in your home, your supplier could potentially disconnect your supply remotely without needing access to your meter.”
https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/consumer/energy/energy-supply/problems-with-your-energy-supply/if-youve-been-told-your-energy-supply-will-be-discoI nnected
And like Gamecock, I have worked for a very long time in the electricity infrastructure system.
It goes beyond smart meters. The recent energy bill includes requirements for future new appliances in certain categories (the larger consumers) to be “smart”. It also makes specific provision for the remote control of said appliances.
EV chargers are already obliged to meet these stipulations.
I tried to be very careful in what I said. I pointed out that UK smart meters rely on wireless communications, not communication over the power network. I understand that suppliers can “potentially” switch off your supply by wireless communication, but my point was that this is not designed for managing rationing, rolling blackouts or anything similar. There is huge difference between a very rare “Disconnect” instruction and frequent “Switch off for an hour” instructions. In network management terms, smart meters are extremely dumb devices. That is inevitable as it is the cost of mass scale reliability and security.
Further, given the utterly dismal implementation of the whole program it is extremely unlikely that National Grid or anyone has the capability to manage network disconnection in any way that is more sophisticated than rolling blackouts. That is my core point. Countries routinely impose rolling blackouts – are smart meters really altering that in any significant way? And in any country with regular blackouts, everyone who can afford them has a generator.
this is not designed for managing rationing, rolling blackouts or anything similar.
What is the “designed purpose” of the remote disconnection feature?
Cutting off people who don’t pay or who hijack electricity supplies. The primary motivation for installing smart meters everywhere has been as a way of saving money on having people visit properties to read meters, cut off supplies, etc. Forget the guff about energy savings – plenty of studies have show that is just over-hyped nonsense. They are about saving labour costs – end of story!
Cutting off people who don’t pay or who hijack electricity supplies.
In the UK, is not the supplier supposed to attend the customer’s home to assess if the customer is at risk if the power supply is disconnected? e.g. the customer relies on powered medical equipment in the home
If hijacking is occurring, how does remote disconnection lock-off the supply?
Point 1 – Correct but that is a relatively recent regulatory rule introduced when it was realised that people could be cut off remotely. Right hand not knowing what the left hand was doing.
Point 2 – Post-meter hijacking – in effect leaving someone else with the bill. Less dangerous than pre-meter hijacking.
relatively recent regulatory rule introduced
Historically i.e. before smart meters, how would the supplier disconnect a typical single domestic premises without attending site?
If “hijacking” is remotely detected, should not a competent electrician attend site to investigate the tampering, if only to physically lock-off the supply?
” In much of southern Europe customers pay a fixed charge based on maximum demand – 5 kW or whatever – with automatic disconnection if the limit is exceeded.”
The “automatic disconnection” consists of no more than “blowing the fuse” Nothing remotely sophisticated about that is there? Drawing more power than your supply fuse anywhere tends to blow it anywhere!
Seriously? You honestly believe that the state won’t turn off electricity because it might make an error? Like promoting a nurse accused (correctly) of murder? Jailing innocent postmasters? Stopping Universal Credit payments because HMRC got everything wrong? It’s ludicrous. The state is utterly incompetent and utterly uncaring. Of course it will disconnect people wrongly.
With respect Mr. Hughes I think there is a huge difference between curbing some usage which is predictable in both amount and time with planned pricing incentives and the Government’s plan to match demand with a chaotically intermittent supply of electricity where the times of energy abundance and shortage will be both unpredictable in timing and amount. I also suspect that the percentage difference between abundance and shortage will be far greater than your US example when we are decarbonised and without any grid-scale storage.
And from where, please, do you get the idea that the CAGW activists will ensure demand management will be made to be “socially acceptable” rather forced upon us because they believe that nothing is more important than saving the planet?
I think that this highlights the difference between my perspective and those who disagree with me. Ultimately this is not about technology but politics and society. The costs of a chaotic electricity system are enormous. Ask anyone who has lived, even briefly, in countries where load shedding is a regular event. That is why such high values are given to loss of load in network planning models.
My practical experience of politicians and bureaucrats is that many of them are ignorant, stupid and incompetent. They really don’t know what they are doing. So they follow whatever are the currently fashionable ideas, hoping that everything will magically turn out ok. But persisting along a path when it starts to be very costly – especially personally – no, not a chance.
I don’t believe in grand conspiracies. Activists only get their way as long as the population at large thinks that it won’t affect them in any serious way. The moment you start cutting off their electricity supply or harming their lives in serious ways is the point at which political and social acceptance of such policies will evaporate.
In other news, another one bites the dust.
Scotland to ditch key climate change target.
The Scottish government is to ditch its flagship target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 75% by 2030.
The final goal of reaching “net-zero” by 2045 will remain, but BBC Scotland News understands government’s annual climate targets could also go.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-68841141
A few weeks ago I went to a local beach being prepared for the summer tourist season.
Southern Water were rebuilding the shingle using massive diggers and dump trucks – diesel powered. The Local Authorities parks department were cutting/strimming the grass with 2 stroke powered equipment. The Highways department contractors were sweeping the roadsides with diesel powered cleaners. Drains were being pumped with fossil fuel powered suction equipment. Some road surfaces were being relayed with bitumen coatings heated up by propane cylinder fuelled burners and remarked using solvent based road marking paints.
I passed a sign reporting how well the council were doing in meeting their 2030 “Climate Emergency” and environmental targets. So I took a few photos and forwarded them to the council’s “Carbon Reduction” Officer by email enquiring how they proposed to reduce all these issues to zero in the next 6 years. The reply was that apparently none of these issues are “directly” attributable to them so they don’t count.
The last time the “Carbon Reduction” senior post was advertised it was at £50,000 - nice work if you can get it eh?
If anyone is in any doubt about where this is all going, the provisions of the recent energy bill make it all abundantly clear, as explained by Mark Hodgson on the CliScep website:
https://cliscep.com/2023/09/13/energy-bill/
Here’s the experience of smart meters in Australia (after 15 years):
In most states, they are mandatory to be fitted in new premises or when an existing accumulation meter is replaced.
There is no mandated surge pricing in Australia, although some customers do voluntarily elect to be charged the wholesale spot (“surge”) price and these customers mostly brag that they save themselves money in doing so. They charge their EV when prices are low (and in Australia the “surge” spot price is often negative during the middle of the day now). They can be exposed to high “surge” prices, but they set alarms to warn themselves of this (market monitoring) and adjust their usage accordingly.
In Australia, no-one can be placed on surge pricing without their express written consent.
Many people elect to have “time of use” pricing, where they have fixed prices for different times of day (peak, shoulder, off-peak). Rather like phone calls used to be. I moved to this and found I saved about 30% off what I would pay if I was on a single tariff (fixed rate all day). The prices are typically revised annually, and I can terminate at any time and move to another energy retailer without penalty and usually within 7 days (there is a “cooling off” period in case you change your mind).
People can insist on being charged a fixed “single price” tariff if they prefer, but for many people this will cost more than a time of use tariff, because there is a cost to the retailer in hedging against the risk that all of its customers will consume a lot at a peak time.
People can insist that the “wireless remote read” capacity of their smart meter can be turned off, and a person needs to come and read their meter every 3 months, but they are charged a regulated additional charge for this “human metering”.
For those interested in what a “surge pricing” retail plan might look like, you can investigate Amber offerings in Australia:
https://help.amber.com.au/hc/en-us/articles/360036913172-How-does-Amber-work
I’m confident the utilities are getting their authorized rate of return. The Australian public is paying full price for their electricity. One may pay less than someone else, but it’s all shifted so the power company still gets their money.
Octopus offer a tariff in the UK which is based on the spot market price, aiui. It’s called “Agile”. It seems to suit folk who are prepared to monitor the market via alerts and adjust their consumption accordingly, often using batteries.