Octopus Energy reviews: Give your feedback

[Deleted User]

savers_united said:

[Deleted User] said:

savers_united said:

[Deleted User] said:

masonic said:

Deleted_User said:

Who thinks that tariffs will drop again once this is over?
Or are we in it for the longterm? 

EV ownership is becoming more common, and Octopus is becoming a large energy supplier. I can't really see how cross-subsidising EV ownership at the expense of regular customers can continue long term (it works when the subsidised users are in a tiny minority). In the short term Go and Go Faster rates may fall back close to where they were.

As more people make use of low demand/low price periods then it follows that they will become high demand/high price. Personally, I believe that we will see some levelling off of prices but from what I read no analysts are predicting massive reductions. Despite the government arguing that we have diverse supply, the problem is that the highest bidder gets the energy. A lot of the LPG that used to head Westwards is now going to Asia. 

This is what should be happening, we should be encouraged to utilise the excess electricity that is being produced during the night when demand is low, its more efficient to keep the turbines turning but we do not have great capacity to store this excess electric, so it's a perfect time to charge EVs and other high powered items. 

Octopus also generates power so they have control of the full cycle and careful modelling and algorithms can work out when there will be excess in the system. 
The key observation here they have retained the 5p off peak rate, and only increased the peak rate so its aligned to other Octopus tariffs, this is a sensible move to protect the Go and Go faster tariff. These new rates make it less attractive for non EV owners, I think it's here to stay but with some extra checks and balances moving forward. 

Non EV owners or those without a home battery are now excluded from the Go/Go Faster tariffs.

It states that in the T&Cs, but Octopus do not enforce it. They don't ask for any proof of EV ownership. Some have even commented that Octopus CS were advising them to move to the Go tariffs. Unless I am missing something nothing has changed on their website, where have you seen this? 

They weren’t, but discussion on the Octopus forum suggests that this has changed for new applicants. 

masonic

Telegraph_Sam said:

masonic said:

worrywart_3 said:

 

The thing is it would be slightly unfair to insist it has to be a ev as for lost they are priced out of purchasing them in the first place, and I’m not sure we are ready bro go all electric for many reasons

Energy companies have the right to incentivise certain behaviours through giving discounted pricing. In the case of EVs, the incentivisation fits in with their green credentials. In the future we may see them offer an innovative tariff associated with other green products, such as heat pumps, although it is hard to think exactly how they would do that.

One could argue that the high cost of EV ownership is a good justification for offering such a tariff to help those who have made the investment. It isn't unfair to offer a product because some people are priced out of meeting the criteria - those priced out people aren't incurring the higher costs that this discounted pricing is supposed to soften. It's not really any different to a supermarket offering a discount based on a minimum spend or a broadband provider offering a discount on their most expensive packages. Ultimately, costs will fall and EV ownership will become much more mainstream. Until then, we all benefit from cleaner air in and around our road network if more people can be incentivised to drive EVs. Speaking as a non-EV owner.

Where they need to be careful is in inadvertently discriminating against a protected group of people, such as those with disabilities. Including battery storage in the criteria, or making case by case exceptions would satisfy that requirement, and perhaps is why they haven't been too draconian in the T&Cs - only stating they may offer a different tariff to those who don't meet the criteria.

I think it would be useful in this context to distinguish clearly between "discriminating" through the price-time combination offer on the one hand, and a formal demand of EV or battery ownership on the other. The former is flexible, almost voluntary, whilst the latter strikes me as heavy handed. Different criteria apply to each.

It's not completely clear what their underlying motivations are. If it is about load shifting and mopping up a sufficient amount of surplus electricity off-peak, then they could be agnostic about what that energy is used for, and instead set a minimum off-peak consumption in kWh and/or % energy consumed that must be achieved in one month in order to qualify for the off peak rate for the next. Or just remove the timeslots that appeal to traditional customers as has already been mentioned. I don't think you'd find either of these options any more appealing.

From my perspective, Octopus can do as they wish. I'll stay with them while I can get a good deal and when I can't then I'll move on.

Telegraph_Sam

If the one hand [CS] is encouraging customers to move [to Go / Go Faster], and the other hand is limiting the uptake through T's & C's, it's hardly an advertisement for joined up thinking.

Telegraph_Sam

masonic said:

Telegraph_S

It's not completely clear what their underlying motivations are. If it is about load shifting and mopping up a sufficient amount of surplus electricity off-peak, then they could be agnostic about what that energy is used for, and instead set a minimum off-peak consumption in kWh and/or % energy consumed that must be achieved in one month in order to qualify for the off peak rate for the next. Or just remove the timeslots that appeal to traditional customers as has already been mentioned.

Or just keep things simple enough for noddies like me to understand

masonic

Telegraph_Sam said:

If the one hand [CS] is encouraging customers to move [to Go / Go Faster], and the other hand is limiting the uptake through T's & C's, it's hardly an advertisement for joined up thinking.

It's a change in policy, pure and simple. I don't think anyone is suggesting CS are still encouraging people who would not qualify to apply now the criteria are being enforced. Nobody is suggesting those already signed up are going to be targeted. We might find we're unable to renew when we reach the end of our 12 months.

masonic

Telegraph_Sam said:

masonic said:

Telegraph_S

It's not completely clear what their underlying motivations are. If it is about load shifting and mopping up a sufficient amount of surplus electricity off-peak, then they could be agnostic about what that energy is used for, and instead set a minimum off-peak consumption in kWh and/or % energy consumed that must be achieved in one month in order to qualify for the off peak rate for the next. Or just remove the timeslots that appeal to traditional customers as has already been mentioned.

Or just keep things simple enough for noddies like me to understand

It doesn't get much more simple than 'Do you own or lease an EV?'

Telegraph_Sam

masonic said:

Telegraph_Sam said:

masonic said:

Telegraph_S

It's not completely clear what their underlying motivations are.

Or just keep things simple enough for noddies like me to understand

It doesn't get much more simple than 'Do you own or lease an EV?'

Or:  "Do you use or have access to a (company)  EV / charge it at  home or elsewhere / have battery storage   ..?  Evidence ..?"  You can make it as complex as you wish. 
Common sense tells me that a simple take it or leave it tariff (with timeslots to steer demand) has got to be the obvious option.

"It's a change in policy, pure and simple. I don't think anyone is suggesting CS are still encouraging people ..."
I take it that this is speculation or inspired guesswork rather than insider knowledge?  

worrywart_3

When did this policy come in to force because they encouraged me only a few weeks ago 

JezR

This 6th term has been added at some time. It was not present in the last version of the page stored on the Wayback Machine but that was taken way back in March:

Our Octopus Go Tariff is designed for customers who either own or long term lease a battery electric vehicle or a plug-in hybrid vehicle that they will be charging at home. If you sign up to our Octopus Go tariff but do not meet this eligibility criteria we can place you on an alternative tariff that we consider is more appropriate for your circumstances. We will let you know if we do this and advise you of the rates and terms that apply to the alternative tariff.

niktheguru

It's quite simply a get at clause for them to cull customers if they want to. They have always said it is a tariff aimed at ev users. They're allowed to charge what they want and offer it to who they want.

The terms and conditions are easily available for anyone to see and "thems the rules" if people decide not to read them its not exactly octopus' fault. When I signed up in May I had seen this clause.

They've been offering this deal to non ev users up till now so that's been a bonus for these people.

Sam I think you're overcomplicating the ev argument. It's not unreasonable for octopus to assume when they ask "do you have an ev" this means will you be charging your ev with us. The fact that some may have an ev and will charge it elsewhere is irrelevant. They want to know if you are going to use the tariff for charging your ev.