Solar Panel Guide Discussion

Cardew

1echidna wrote: »

Interesting. Is the Utility Co required to be transparent in showing the basis of the algorithm used to the customer or does the customer just have to rely on the fact that it is independently audited?

Good question - well put! Don't know the answer!

I suspect few people would understand lines of code even if they had access. One of the contribtors to MSE several years ago used to be responsible for those algorithms(he claimed - and seemed pretty knowledgeable)). Even the name of the auditing firm was posted on MSE.

I just posted this on another thread about estimated readings:

Leaving aside the delay, it is 'Standard Practice;)'
with some customers to give an incorrect meter reading in order to gain some
advantage. i.e. if moving to a cheaper tariff they give a reading lower than
shown on the meter; if moving to a higher priced tariff they give a higher
reading.

The companies have a computer with a sophisticated algorithm
that estimates the meter reading on any date; and they tend to use this estimate
if there is any discrepancy betwen the estimate and the customer's
reading.

However the algorithm cannot take into account unusual patterns
of consumption and uses an average. I have an annex with gas/electricity meters
that is rarely used. Two winters ago it used a lot of gas as it was very cold(to
prevent frost damage) and we had people staying in the annex.

Later that
year I changed supplier and supplied the correct meter reading which was almost
the same as an actual reading some months earlier. This was rejected and an
estimated reading substituted.

KevinG

We seem to have had this discussion about how to estimate the underpayment in the case of a backwards-running meter several times and I still don't see what past consumption has got to do with anything, especially if the period relates to a period before the panels were installed (which surely it must as the recorded consumption after installation is known to be artificially low). So, I'll say it again - to me, it is simple, the underpayment should be calculated solely on the basis of the amount of electricity generated. By default, it is assumed that 50% of this is exported (so will have caused the meter to run backwards), so unless the supplier or customer can prove otherwise, this is how the underpayment should be calculated - the cost of 50% of the units generated.

John_Pierpoint

As most people actually export more than 50% of generation - that would encourage the electricity company to extract the digit and change the meter.

orrery

Cardew wrote: »

To be fair to Utility companies(not easy!) that reputation is unjustified.

Really? I've used these utility companies for all my working life and I have long experience of their behaviour. I've had their estimates on usage changed many times and the DD changed to match - this always seems to result in a large surplus being held by the utility and no refund unless I demand it. I've even had one company (nPower) change its method of charging to one where their interpretation of 'per year' became 'per tariff year' (a completely variable period based on when they decided to change their tariff) without telling anyone - resulting in me being charged for many more units at the higher rate - so, even if they put the tariff down the charges for the year increased. I was subsequently given a payment to make me happy (shut me up) and then, when Ofgen found against them, given compensation. So this isn't about algorithms - it is all about how they want to interpret the situation and how they apply them. Based on my experience, I'd be rushing to get my meter changed.

zeupater

John_Pierpoint wrote: »

As most people actually export more than 50% of generation - that would encourage the electricity company to extract the digit and change the meter.

Hi John

Can you clarify the above, I don't follow the logic ...

If exporting more than 50% of generation and only being paid for 50% of it - how would there be a benfit for the energy companies to rectify the situation ?? .... :think: .... surely they're getting some energy, although very small amounts, for free ..

HTH
Z

Cardew

orrery wrote: »

Really? I've used these utility companies for all my working life and I have long experience of their behaviour. I've had their estimates on usage changed many times and the DD changed to match - this always seems to result in a large surplus being held by the utility and no refund unless I demand it. I've even had one company (nPower) change its method of charging to one where their interpretation of 'per year' became 'per tariff year' (a completely variable period based on when they decided to change their tariff) without telling anyone - resulting in me being charged for many more units at the higher rate - so, even if they put the tariff down the charges for the year increased. I was subsequently given a payment to make me happy (shut me up) and then, when Ofgen found against them, given compensation. So this isn't about algorithms - it is all about how they want to interpret the situation and how they apply them. Based on my experience, I'd be rushing to get my meter changed.

We are totally at cross-puposes and you have taken that quote completely out of context.

The Npower 'sculpting' scandal was nothing to do with the estimating algorithm, just 'creative accounting' that bordered on the illegal. I was one of the first to involve ofgem - read the huge thread on the subject.

In the post you quote I was simply referring to the 'mechanism' that all Utility companies have to comply with for estimating consumption when there has been a price change and hence give meter readings; not in any way defending Utility companies.

That is different to:

I've had their estimates on usage changed many times and the DD changed to match

zeupater

Cardew wrote: »

We are totally at cross-puposes and you have taken that quote completely out of context.

The Npower 'sculpting' scandal was nothing to do with the estimating algorithm, just 'creative accounting' that bordered on the illegal. I was one of the first to involve ofgem - read the huge thread on the subject.

In the post you quote I was simply referring to the 'mechanism' that all Utility companies have to comply with for estimating consumption when there has been a price change and hence give meter readings; not in any way defending Utility companies.

That is different to:

Hi Cardew

I don't know how well the algorithm(s) is(/are) regulated ... over the last couple of years we've had our DD raised on a number of occasions and suspect that out supplier simply bases the forecast purely on previous usage when it suits them (ie high winter usage) and also assesses in their favour when winter usage has been low .... It's also pretty strange to find that the telephone agents seem to use a completely different algorithm to the automated billing system in order to set the DD payment ....

In summer last year out supplier substantially increased our DD, I disputed their figures because we were well in credit and after escallation a supervisor agreed to refund a considerable sum and lower the DD on the basis that if we were in debt at the same point next year we would pay the difference ... the DD was changed, but the process meant that one month's payment date was missed - however, at the beginning of June this year their automated system decided we were in credit to the tune of approx four DD payments, which was returned by cheque ... less than a couple of months later their automated system notified us of the change in our supply contract and estimated a new, higher DD figure - I rang, and the agent recalculated & estimated a figure below what we were already paying, we renewed but left the payment as it was in order to cover the price increase and allow for a mild previous winter. A couple of days later we submitted the latest meter readings ... the billing system substantially increased the DD (by approx the % increase between the old&new tariff) even though we were in credit and had recently received a substantial repayment ... called and spoke to an agent and the DD was lowered to well below what we had been paying for over a year as I wasn't going to be so accommodating this time ....

Considering the above, if there's any regulation of the algorithm I'd be very surprised, but if there is, it's not working very well and it just looks like the DD is simply being set, by our supplier at least, at a level to maximise cashflow ...

HTH
Z

KevinG

zeupater wrote: »

Can you clarify the above, I don't follow the logic ...

The context is backwards-running meters. The more that is being exported, the further the meter winds back!

orrery

Cardew wrote: »

We are totally at cross-puposes and you have taken that quote completely out of context.

No, not at all. The tricks that the utilities get up to are legion and simply not related to some audited algorithm. The issue was whether you should get your backward running meter changed quickly or rely on the utility to give you a fair deal when they come to estimate your error.

Their estimates are nowhere near as good as you seem to be implying. EDF told me that my last generation number were out of kilter from their estimates when they were pretty close to my graphing, so their algorithms don't seem to be that realistic.

However, even if I accept everything you say about algorithms and auditing - I was merely pointing out that there is much more to it than that - the utilities will, and do, find their way around the rules with absolute devious abandon (hence my illustration re: nPower). To delay reporting a backward running meter is to place yourself in a situation where the utility is unlikely to allow you to come out of it on top.

Cardew

zeupater wrote: »

Hi Cardew

I don't know how well the algorithm(s) is(/are) regulated ... over the last couple of years we've had our DD raised on a number of occasions and suspect that out supplier simply bases the forecast purely on previous usage when it suits them (ie high winter usage) and also assesses in their favour when winter usage has been low .... It's also pretty strange to find that the telephone agents seem to use a completely different algorithm to the automated billing system in order to set the DD payment ....


Z

Hi Z

I have obviously not made myself clear or you have 'not understood the exam question';)

I have no idea about the algorithm(s) used in the example you give. That is predicting your consumption months ahead, taking into account any credit or debit balance etc etc. If they predict incorrectly you will only lose(or gain) some interest. You won't be over or underbilled.

Your example is for those paying by DD. Those paying quarterly are not affected.

That is nothing to do with the audited algorithm I posted about. To give a example:

You get a quarterly gas bill of, say 900kWh for period 01 September to 30 November, based on actual meter readings at beginning and end of period.

On 01 October there was a price increase from Rate A to Rate B. So the simplistic approach would be to estimate and bill you for one third(300kWh) at Rate A(for Sept) and two thirds(600kWh) at Rate B(for Oct/Nov).

However that will not happen and you will find that the estimated meter reading on 01 Oct will have you paying, say, 210kWh at Rate A and 690kWh at Rate B. I don't pretend to know all the parameters of the Algorithm but one would certainly be that Sept is warmer than Oct and Nov.

That amount paid at Rate A and Rate B affects both DD and Quarterly paying customers and if the estimate is wrong customers will pay too much(or too little). As said above with millions of customers affected every step must be taken to ensure that the algorithm is as accurate as possible - hence independantly audited.