Energy bills

[MSS]

Originally Posted by Saga Lout

The shielding would only stop it being read from an outside source, it would not stop it recording units used, the power cables to and from the meter determine the usage and would continue to do so, the shielding would simply stop it being read remotely. The meters send signals that way and there's no offence in stopping that signal. At no point did I suggest that a shield would stop a meter recording units used, just the ability to read them would be the effect of shielding one.

If all you are aiming to achieve is to block the signal out to the mobile network, then encasing it in lead is a drastic measure.

Earthed kitchen foil should do.

One has to ask, to what end?

[Saga Lout]

Originally Posted by MSS

If all you are aiming to achieve is to block the signal out to the mobile network, then encasing it in lead is a drastic measure.

Earthed kitchen foil should do.

One has to ask, to what end?

To keep someone in a job.
If it needs reading they need to employ someone to read it, that's all it is but, it stops them auto adjusting the meter too, that's a function of smart meters. I don't have one and won't have one unless it becomes law, then I'll shield it to force them to physically come and read it.
If you put foil onto a piece of card and stand it behind a router, it helps the signal strength in the property if it's wifi, foil is good for that but lead is best for blocking signals.

[edwardmk]

Non- earthed foil will reflect/disrupt the signal. Earthed foil should block the signal. The wi-fi signal is weak, so a basic Faraday cage should be enough. If it's high energy radiation like alpha, beta or gamma, then lead is of course essential. At least that's my understanding. I'll just avoid a smart meter myself for a little longer. I don't like the idea of a compulsory power cut and there still seem to be reports of them generating incorrect bills.

[MSS]

Originally Posted by edwardmk

Non- earthed foil will reflect/disrupt the signal. Earthed foil should block the signal. The wi-fi signal is weak, so a basic Faraday cage should be enough. If it's high energy radiation like alpha, beta or gamma, then lead is of course essential. At least that's my understanding. I'll just avoid a smart meter myself for a little longer. I don't like the idea of a compulsory power cut and there still seem to be reports of them generating incorrect bills.

Exactly right.

There is no need for lead when wishing to block a mobile signal. An earthed foil/Farady cage is all that's needed.

Best to save the lead for WW3.

[MarkS]

There has been a dramatic rise in the number of people being effectively cut off from electricity, after their 'smart' meters are covertly converted to prepayment meters, after users object to unexpectedly high bills (£40,000), which is possibly due to bugs in the software of the smart meter.

And the users have NO recourse to the courts in any dispute, they just lose their electricity.
The reasons for the energy companies pushing smart meters is becoming obvious.


Yahoo News UK: 'Switch by stealth’: Alarming rise in homes with smart meters being cut off remotely.
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/smart-mete...142534893.html

I smell another post office type scandal developing, where users are being held financially responsible for known (and unknown) software bugs in smart meters.

[macafee2]

Originally Posted by MarkS

There has been a dramatic rise in the number of people being effectively cut off from electricity, after their 'smart' meters are covertly converted to prepayment meters, after users object to unexpectedly high bills (£40,000), which is possibly due to bugs in the software of the smart meter.

And the users have NO recourse to the courts in any dispute, they just lose their electricity.
The reasons for the energy companies pushing smart meters is becoming obvious.


Yahoo News UK: 'Switch by stealth’: Alarming rise in homes with smart meters being cut off remotely.
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/smart-mete...142534893.html

I smell another post office type scandal developing, where users are being held financially responsible for known (and unknown) software bugs in smart meters.

people have given warnings about the stealth of smart meters but I was still shocked to find out companies were switching customers to prepayment without notification.


macafee2

[wraymond]

These magical developments have an air about them – somehow dressed as being hugely in the general interest, and in the name of progress. Familiarity with the change breeds a degree of usefulness, but then relatively small changes gradually and in short order transform the original euphamism of ‘progress’ into the reality that was intended.

Already VED is almost here for electric vehicles of all classes and now the safeguards of some continuity around domestic energy supplies have been abandoned. It cannot be a coincidence that the huge reduction in the number of so many essential service suppliers has also been accomplished in such a short time resulting in massive, and never previously seen, rocketing prices. Of course, Russia – the eternal bogey man - is blamed! What cobblers!

[torque2me]

Originally Posted by wraymond

T

Already VED is almost here for electric vehicles of all classes and now the safeguards of some continuity around domestic energy supplies have been abandoned. It cannot be a coincidence that the huge reduction in the number of so many essential service suppliers has also been accomplished in such a short time resulting in massive, and never previously seen, rocketing prices. Of course, Russia – the eternal bogey man - is blamed! What cobblers!

And so VED should be levied to electric vehicles. If that is the tax raising method it should apply to ALL vehicles that use the road. A case could be even made for the heavier a vehicle the higher the category.


The main irksome point, after EV's having a free ride, is that only 20-25% of VED raised revenue actually goes on road construction and maintenance although "maintenance" might be given a different meaning ;-)


Kev

[wraymond]

Couldn't agree more. What puzzles me no end is the bland acceptance of honey coated carrots being dangled to make a market for the expansion of a section of the power industry's benefit!

And the most expensive power one at that!
And at exorbitant cost per car as well!
And having such a short life as well!
Ah well, a fool and his money....

[Lancpudn]

Originally Posted by torque2me

And so VED should be levied to electric vehicles. If that is the tax raising method it should apply to ALL vehicles that use the road. A case could be even made for the heavier a vehicle the higher the category.


The main irksome point, after EV's having a free ride, is that only 20-25% of VED raised revenue actually goes on road construction and maintenance although "maintenance" might be given a different meaning ;-)


Kev

Yes it's coming for all vehicles no matter what drive train they use, A road use pricing scheme will replace the emission based VED at present. They're talking about a date of 2025 before one is implemented. It will be interesting to see what they will do as they wont be able to penalise electric vehicles too much because of the NetZero policy. One report I read said 'The polluter pays' & will see heavier taxes for ICE vehicles.



The company car lobbyist have been out in force warning the government not to raise BIK to claw back tax. https://www.fleetnews.co.uk/news/com...k-lost-revenue




I got this reply back from OFGEM regarding their price cap mythology today.




Feedback <[email protected]>



Good afternoon,


Complaint Response (CMPT0550)
Thank you for taking the time to contact us with your concerns, which we have recorded as a complaint. I understand that you are unhappy with the price cap methodology in relation to the EBIT and Headroom allowances.
To address the concerns you have raised, I would like to provide you with the following information.
Supplier profit
I’d like to begin by addressing supplier profits. Ofgem, on behalf of customers, carefully monitors the financial health of their suppliers, and most are not currently turning a profit at all, which puts them at risk of failure, disrupting supply and increasing costs for consumers, particularly the most vulnerable, which is our ultimate concern.
The price cap applies to companies’ domestic retail business. The profits you may be referring to from some companies were not from their retail businesses, but from oil and gas extraction, which is not an area regulated by Ofgem.
1. Will you change the EBIT calculation from 1.9% of other costs to a fixed £10 per household?

We are currently reviewing the EBIT allowance. We published a policy consultation on the 26 August, which is now closed. In our consultation, we considered alternative approaches to the current scaling, such as a fixed absolute term.

We noted the range of factors to be taken into account in the consultation document, which could have varying impacts, and therefore the need to assess whether the current EBIT allowance level delivers an appropriate rate of return for efficient suppliers. We intend to continue this consultation process going forward. We welcome further responses to consultations in the normal course.

You can sign up for any consultation and receive an email update when it passes from one stage to the next. All consultations are available to view on our website.

2. Will you change the Headroom Allowance calculation from 1.46% of other costs to a fixed £10 per household?

The headroom allowance is one of the ways we recognise the net cost pressure of uncertainties that are not already included in our efficient benchmark. In our 2018 decision, we decided that it is appropriate for headroom to scale in line with all cost components except network costs. We think this approach is reasonable because it avoids an allowance either over-scaling and undermining protection for consumers, or under-scaling and exposing suppliers to potential risks.

We currently do not intend to review the headroom allowance. However, as with all cost components, where there is evidence of material and systematic changes in costs, we will consider cost reviews.

3. How do you plan to reintroduce competition to the market and force domestic energy suppliers to once again offer cheaper fixed rate tariffs?

We regulate the energy suppliers in the way we deem best to protect the interests of consumers including by promoting competition. The Domestic Gas and Electricity (Tariff Cap) Act 2018 (the Act) sets us the objective of protecting existing and future customers who pay standard and default rates. There are currently non-SVT tariffs on the market for consumers to access that do not fall under the objective of the Act, such as fixed tariffs. Apart from limiting what suppliers can charge on standard variable and default tariffs, we have no power to dictate the prices suppliers charge. These are commercial decisions for energy companies to make based on their assessments of the wholesale and retail markets.

However, due to global market conditions, exacerbated by Russia’s actions, we continue to see much higher wholesale energy prices than normal. As a result, average fixed rate tariffs continue to exceed the cap level. We expect that once wholesale energy prices return to normal levels, suppliers will begin to offer a wider variety of non-SVT tariffs once more.

The rise in global energy prices is unprecedented and Ofgem is deeply conscious of the worrying impact high energy bills are having, and will continue to have, on consumers across Great Britain. Ofgem is completely focused on doing all we can to support consumers through this crisis.
Thank you for taking the time to raise this issue with us.
If you are not satisfied with how Ofgem have handled your complaint, you can ask for it to be reviewed. The purpose of the complaint review is to ensure your complaint was investigated thoroughly in the first instance, and that all relevant information was supplied. Please visit our website for details of complaint review process.

Yours sincerely,
Jonathan Anton
Engagement Analyst - Complaints