Meter readings

[antongould]

Hardly surprising - and would could blame you?! - but you haven't answerd my question about how the pay of executive staff of energy providers, state or otherwise, impacts directly upon the kinds of tariff that they offer to their customers...

My recollection is that one of the reasons you support the privatisation of electricity and gas supply is because of the choice offered to customers as before they had been tied to their local board and hence their tariffs. If practice this choice is not as free and as beneficial to the customer as possible. All suppliers have loss leading tariffs structured to get customers to change supply to their company in the hope they will, when the tariff ends or the rates change, have yet another customer on the standard tariff where their margin is generated. A large percentage of customers are on these standard tariffs some still with their original supplier while others play the field often in the hope that they will, as I mentioned before, get lost in the system. If a supplier really cared about their customers why wouldn't they put them all on their cheapest tariff rather than, as they are obliged to do, telling them about it on each bill?
I favour the old system where all customers were on the cheapest tariff and the supplier could only increase it if it could prove to the regulator, that is the government, that they needed to.
As to the impact of executive pay - it's not just the pay but also the performance - the vast majority of the executives who took over the industry on privatisation had no background in the industry and thus, IMVVHO, have directly contributed to the poor customer service and high prices in relation to fuel costs we have today.
But enough I have by now written the book that I said I wouldn't and I will never convince you that privatisation was a sad mistake ......

[ahinton]

My recollection is that one of the reasons you support the privatisation of electricity and gas supply is because of the choice offered to customers as before they had been tied to their local board and hence their tariffs. If practice this choice is not as free and as beneficial to the customer as possible. All suppliers have loss leading tariffs structured to get customers to change supply to their company in the hope they will, when the tariff ends or the rates change, have yet another customer on the standard tariff where their margin is generated. A large percentage of customers are on these standard tariffs some still with their original supplier while others play the field often in the hope that they will, as I mentioned before, get lost in the system. If a supplier really cared about their customers why wouldn't they put them all on their cheapest tariff rather than, as they are obliged to do, telling them about it on each bill?
I favour the old system where all customers were on the cheapest tariff and the supplier could only increase it if it could prove to the regulator, that is the government, that they needed to.
As to the impact of executive pay - it's not just the pay but also the performance - the vast majority of the executives who took over the industry on privatisation had no background in the industry and thus, IMVVHO, have directly contributed to the poor customer service and high prices in relation to fuel costs we have today.
But enough I have by now written the book that I said I wouldn't and I will never convince you that privatisation was a sad mistake ......

This is not why I support energy supply companies being in private hands; my actual view is that I don't care who owns and manages that business as long as it generates a profit without being unfair to the customer although, when it's the state that does so, the customer's only choice is to go independent of that supplier altogether by having his/her own supply instead - a Hobson's for most customers.

I do not trust any of the private supply firms to be fair to the customer and I agree with much of what you say about this - but then I didn't and wouldn't trust the government to do the job either and I have scant faith in the regulatory régime which, as it happens, is worse still in the financial services industry where, although the regulator is set up by statute and its duties laid down in statute, it is a private company limited by guarantee just like any other such entity except that it is non-profit-making and has no shareholders and, partly as a consequence of this constitution, it functions largely as though accountable to no one even though it is supposed in principle to be accuntable first to HM Treasury and ultimately to Parliament.

From this it should become clear that I favour as much customer independence of the big suppliers as possible and, had more research been conducted by private companies and/or governments into sustainable alternatives generations ago, that would be a good deal more possible than it is today.

As to the question of privatisation being a mistake in this or any other area, my principal concern is that government's job is to govern, not to own and manage things that it cannot and should not really be expected to own and manage; the more operations that are "nationalised", the more problems that are created as a consequence.

When industries are "nationalised", the reduction in competition risks resulting in supplier complacency based on the assumption that customers have nowhere else to go; that can never be a good thing in principle and it can at worst be a dangerous one.

Not all customers want the same kind of tariff and what's the cheapest for some may not be so for others, depending on the nature and extent of their usage. However, in the most unlikely even that the energy supply industry is "nationalised", I'd lay a pound to a penny that this will not result in much if any simplification of tariffs or better deals for the customer.

Lastly, I do not in principle like to be told that I'm a "shareholder", "stakeholder" or whatever the chosen term may be in a business that I have little clue about and in which I would accordingly not think to purchase shares were I able to do so; that's not even to say that I do not believe that certain operations might be best run by the state (though there can be no guarantee of such success) - merely to point out that I am not and should not be considered to be involved in some way involved in that business and own a slice of it just beause the state owns and manages it.

[P. G. Tipps]

Excellent, thoughtful, and often entertaining thread. I'm sure there is truth on both sides of the nationalisation/privatisation argument when it comes to energy supply. 'Pessimistic' though it may seem to ahinton, I tend to concur with just about all he has said on the subject but have occasionally wondered whether he was ever taught the valuable art of précis-writing at Glasgow Academy? Apologies to anton for getting npower's and even ,apparently, my own name wrong. Quite extraordinary.

However, I would point out to S_A that if, say, Marxist Jeremy becomes leader of the Labour Party, and maybe even Prime Minister, he too inevitably becomes part of the 'Boss Class'. Just look at those Trade Union leaders enjoying a marvellously rich and cushy lifestyle just like their counterparts on the other side of the negotiating desk.They may speak differently but they are all rivals within the 'Boss Class' determined to acquire more power over the lower orders than the other bosses. Sadly, however, we do need bosses and sometimes we even become bosses ourselves.

A boss is a boss and has to rule and act like a boss and if he/she doesn't then he/she ain't no boss, S_A!

[antongould]

I agree Scotty a very thoughtful thread thanks to all who have contributed especially ahinton, S_A and your reborn self ...

[ahinton]

'Pessimistic' though it may seem to ahinton, I tend to concur with just about all he has said on the subject but have occasionally wondered whether he was ever taught the valuable art of précis-writing at Glasgow Academy?

I imagine that it would have been hard for me to do that without attending the place, which I didn't - so you may wonder on no more occasions!

To return to the specific topic of meter readings, however, it occurs to me that, if my multi-function Xerox device (photocopier / printer / scanner) can so easily be set up to send its meter readings automatically to the service provider, as indeed it is, what's so problematic about the same kind of arrangement for electricity, gas and water meters? OK, setting this up would obviously be a massive and costly undertaking but, since it is nevertheless possible, it might not be unreasonable to wonder why it's not being tried. In the competitive market-place in which energy and water suppliers currently operate, one might assume that it would only take one of them to start the ball rolling by sorting this out (probably one of the smaller suppliers rather than one of the "big 6") for the others to get interested. It might make some meter readers redundant (although, as has been noted upthread, there would appear to be far fewer of these today anyway), but it ought at the very least to reduce the erroneous and failed billing issues to which attention has been drawn earlier and secure for the suppliers a larger slice of the profits that they're generating but not necessarily receiving.

[greenilex]

Re bosses, and having served under Heads of both sexes, I do think there is a gender difference in bossiness...

[Cockney Sparrow]

A family member was involved in a business conference about the roll out of a national (presumably England & Wales) programme of smart water metering, it will be coming to all of us (with presumably some exceptions)....

As to energy:

http://www.smartenergygb.org/national-rollout

"By the end of 2020, around 50 million smart meters will be fitted in over 26 million households across Wales, Scotland and England".

I imagine they will still "safety inspect" the meters every few years - I reckon its to check for meter bypassing, which of course is likely to be unsafe....

[Dave2002]

From the web site mentioned in msg 112

Right now, most people in the UK have no idea how much energy they're using at home, or what it's costing them. A third of us don't understand our energy bills.

By 2020, every home in the UK will be able to use smart meter technology to see exactly how much energy they're using, and what it's costing in pounds and pence. Householders will finally be able to confidently budget for their energy costs.

The rollout will bring immediate benefits to us as consumers, but also lays the foundation for Great Britain's move to a lower carbon economy and a secure energy supply.

So we'll be able to work out where we can save energy, cut our bills and do our bit for the environment.

I think it's very simple minded to assume that people will spend a lot of time looking at their meters trying to work out their own consumption. I have had access to a meter to monitor consumption for a few years. When the battery ran out I couldn't be bothered to replace it. I also have several other meters. The meters are useful for assessing how much electricity each device uses - and I know that our big LCD TV is rated at around 150W, and that older PCs run at around 125W, while some small TVs only run at 25W, and that some laptops run at between 15-25W. The standby on computers such as iMacs is typically at least 25W, so if left on all the while that's about 0.6 kWh per day - cost probably about 10p per day. That may be more or less trivial to some.

The total meters do have some use for fault finding, and discovering if one device is using a lot of energy. If there's still a current flow when almost everything is turned off, then either there is a fault in the wiring, or something left on is using more than expected. Culprits might include old fridges and freezers.

Other factors come in too. Even if I know what the consumption is, other people - kids, wives, friends etc. haven't a clue and don't care. I bet many people have others in their families (perhaps children) who will happily leave every device they have on, lights, TV, radios etc. and then go out with their mates, or simply go into other rooms. We have lights in our kitchen which are rated at about 400 W in total, and they are often left on when there's nobody there.

Meters are only a small part of the "solution" to waste of energy. I don't think we've yet reached the day when we can fit our relatives with a form of remote controlled cattle prod to give them large shocks every time they go out and leave the stuff switched on - an iPad or Android app perhaps!

[antongould]

V

A family member was involved in a business conference about the roll out of a national (presumably England & Wales) programme of smart water metering, it will be coming to all of us (with presumably some exceptions)....

As to energy:

http://www.smartenergygb.org/national-rollout

"By the end of 2020, around 50 million smart meters will be fitted in over 26 million households across Wales, Scotland and England".

I imagine they will still "safety inspect" the meters every few years - I reckon its to check for meter bypassing, which of course is likely to be unsafe....

I feel this is just another plan that the suppliers will fail to hit - not too long ago the plan was that every household in the UK would have a Smart energy meter by 2019.

The industry has had smart meters for decades - prepayment or key meters - every time the customer charges the meter it sends down the payments, readings, tariff rates, debt position and other information. This information is accumulated nationally and should be sent on to the correct supplier but a ton of it with millions of pounds in payments cannot be allocated because of the lack of control over meter issue I may have grumbled on about before.
Fitting the smart meters is the easy bit enforcing control over the records of issues and removals is something the industry has become appalling at - it's just a meter, albeit a cleverer one, after all .......

[Dave2002]

I first heard of smart meters and smart distribution systems in the mid 1970s. At that time we were all supposed to get smart systems and smart devices within "a few years", so that if, for example, the grid became overloaded messages could be sent out to everyone's kettles to turn off for (say) 10 seconds, which would have had almost negligible effect for most users, but could help with peaks in the distribution networks. Clearly critical life support systems would not be expected to obey any such instructions.

It's now about 40 years since I remember discussing this with others, and as far as I can see **** all has happened since. It's still based on the rule "jam to-morrow and jam yesterday – but never jam to-day." OK - we didn't have jam yesterday either!

[Serial_Apologist]

This is not why I support energy supply companies being in private hands; my actual view is that I don't care who owns and manages that business as long as it generates a profit without being unfair to the customer although, when it's the state that does so, the customer's only choice is to go independent of that supplier altogether by having his/her own supply instead - a Hobson's for most customers.

That should be practicable today though, under state ownership.

I do not trust any of the private supply firms to be fair to the customer and I agree with much of what you say about this - but then I didn't and wouldn't trust the government to do the job either and I have scant faith in the regulatory régime which, as it happens, is worse still in the financial services industry where, although the regulator is set up by statute and its duties laid down in statute, it is a private company limited by guarantee just like any other such entity except that it is non-profit-making and has no shareholders and, partly as a consequence of this constitution, it functions largely as though accountable to no one even though it is supposed in principle to be accuntable first to HM Treasury and ultimately to Parliament.

What in fact happens isn't that "the government manages" but that it takes on someone supposedly expert at running it from another sector, usually (as I said above) paying them private sector salaries.

From this it should become clear that I favour as much customer independence of the big suppliers as possible and, had more research been conducted by private companies and/or governments into sustainable alternatives generations ago, that would be a good deal more possible than it is today.

As I said earlier, that should be as possible today under state as private ownership.

As to the question of privatisation being a mistake in this or any other area, my principal concern is that government's job is to govern, not to own and manage things that it cannot and should not really be expected to own and manage; the more operations that are "nationalised", the more problems that are created as a consequence.

As above.

When industries are "nationalised", the reduction in competition risks resulting in supplier complacency based on the assumption that customers have nowhere else to go; that can never be a good thing in principle and it can at worst be a dangerous one.

Whereas by contrast customers are rightly cynical today in recognising that wherever they go things will end up no different.

Not all customers want the same kind of tariff and what's the cheapest for some may not be so for others, depending on the nature and extent of their usage. However, in the most unlikely even that the energy supply industry is "nationalised", I'd lay a pound to a penny that this will not result in much if any simplification of tariffs or better deals for the customer.

Well I'm not the only one to moot the idea of another kind of nationalisation as an exemplar to a different relationship ethos between management and workforce, and between both of these and customer, as I adumbrated earlier - one less conducive to the "nothing to do with me gov, I'm all right" ethos typified in your end statement; we won't know as it's not likely to happen under this lot, but time allows us a chance to apply a bit of creative thinking to come up with fresh perspectives rather than dredging up old worn out cynicisms that it's all been tried before, when it clearly hasn't.

[ahinton]

That should be practicable today though, under state ownership.

What should, exactly? - I mean, which bit?(!). The state owning and managing the energy supply network and opearting at a healthy profit without being unfair to its customers or the customer getting his/her own independent supply and no longer needing to be a government energy customer?(!)...

What in fact happens isn't that "the government manages" but that it takes on someone supposedly expert at running it from another sector, usually (as I said above) paying them private sector salaries.

Well, that's pretty much what I mean by the government "managing" - not that it necessarily does it itself but it subcontracts such experts from private industry; if, on the other hand, it chose to employ such experts, it would then effecively be "managing" it itself.

As I said earlier, that should be as possible today under state as private ownership.

"Should" is the operative word; in reality, though, the state appears to be doing little such research and private enterprise is certainly not doing enough. Tht said, my point was that it should all have been done far sooner, by the state, private enterprise or both and, had it been so, such customer independence would by now have become more of a practical reality.

Whereas by contrast customers are rightly cynical today in recognising that wherever they go things will end up no different.

In my experience of changing electricity supplier several times in the past few years (I have no gas supply), I cannot agree; I have certainly saved considerable sums by doing this, although I agree that it is a nuisance and such changes do not usually go as smoothly as they might and should.

Well I'm not the only one to moot the idea of another kind of nationalisation as an exemplar to a different relationship ethos between management and workforce, and between both of these and customer, as I adumbrated earlier - one less conducive to the "nothing to do with me gov, I'm all right" ethos typified in your end statement; we won't know as it's not likely to happen under this lot, but time allows us a chance to apply a bit of creative thinking to come up with fresh perspectives rather than dredging up old worn out cynicisms that it's all been tried before, when it clearly hasn't.

Good points, except that I cannot envisage it happening under any other lot, assuming that, after the next General Election, there will even be another lot!

[Serial_Apologist]

Excellent, thoughtful, and often entertaining thread. I'm sure there is truth on both sides of the nationalisation/privatisation argument when it comes to energy supply. 'Pessimistic' though it may seem to ahinton, I tend to concur with just about all he has said on the subject but have occasionally wondered whether he was ever taught the valuable art of précis-writing at Glasgow Academy? Apologies to anton for getting npower's and even ,apparently, my own name wrong. Quite extraordinary.

However, I would point out to S_A that if, say, Marxist Jeremy becomes leader of the Labour Party, and maybe even Prime Minister, he too inevitably becomes part of the 'Boss Class'. Just look at those Trade Union leaders enjoying a marvellously rich and cushy lifestyle just like their counterparts on the other side of the negotiating desk.They may speak differently but they are all rivals within the 'Boss Class' determined to acquire more power over the lower orders than the other bosses. Sadly, however, we do need bosses and sometimes we even become bosses ourselves.

A boss is a boss and has to rule and act like a boss and if he/she doesn't then he/she ain't no boss, S_A!

Employees (and outsiders) would be less cynically disposed and more motivated to be involved if state owned bosses came up through and were periodically elected from and by their workforces, receiving salaries at a pre-negotiated multiple that would be calculated on skill time acquisition. Thereby would they be deserving of a respect appropriate to boss status, rather than subject to class-based envy, the decline of which would accord with efficiency principles closer to forms of co-operation and sustainability that would see an end to any need for greed and waste, and competition consigned to Primary school itineraries.

[Serial_Apologist]

What should, exactly? - I mean, which bit?(!). The state owning and managing the energy supply network and opearting at a healthy profit without being unfair to its customers or the customer getting his/her own independent supply and no longer needing to be a government energy customer?(!)...

Well both - or neither, assuming the state industry is not expected or required to make a profit. One of the problems of old-type nationalisation was that it tended, especially initially, to be resorted to for failed but indispensable industries that were at an automatic disadvantage from word go. I happen to quite like the idea of the nationalised firm successfully competing because an unrigged market (ever come across one?) could be the measure of needs being met without treating workforces in the usual way, though I don't think it's an ideal, long-term.

Well, that's pretty much what I mean by the government "managing" - not that it necessarily does it itself but it subcontracts such experts from private industry; if, on the other hand, it chose to employ such experts, it would then effecively be "managing" it itself.

Nominally - which would still mean taking the rap. But we have to get away from this idea of top-down imposed managerialism, with its scapegopating of systemic problems inbuilt within the competitive model and go for bottom-up. Sure the whole rigmarole would be slowed down - and those who diss human nature will say it encourages sloth; but if product were sustainable as opposed to prone to competition-determined planned obsolescence, that would make more time for inclusiveness in the fullest sense of the term in the whole business of management from the grass roots up, and an associated inculcated sense of belonging and stakeholdership Blair once correctly spoke of as generative of social responsibility.

"Should" is the operative word; in reality, though, the state appears to be doing little such research and private enterprise is certainly not doing enough. Tht said, my point was that it should all have been done far sooner, by the state, private enterprise or both and, had it been so, such customer independence would by now have become more of a practical reality.

Well maybe it's not too late eh?

In my experience of changing electricity supplier several times in the past few years (I have no gas supply), I cannot agree; I have certainly saved considerable sums by doing this, although I agree that it is a nuisance and such changes do not usually go as smoothly as they might and should.

Well it's not the experience of many, as evidenced by consumer reports that come out from time to time, personal anecdote, and the numerous consumer programmes dealing with unfair practices that litter daytime TV whenever I switch over.

Good points, except that I cannot envisge it happening under any otgher lot, assuming that, after the next General Election, there will even be another lot!

Thanks! None of my disagrements have dealt with your earlier points about how money is generated today, and I kind of agree that it is very difficult to adduce the wherewithal of value creation as being based on averaged hours of production throughout industry (though as I said inflation would seem to confirm it); which is why we need to go for a much simplified way of carrying out our economic affairs, not least for the sake of transparency.

[french frank]

Just popped in to see what people were discussing after so many posts