Octopus Energy reviews: Give your feedback

masonic

niktheguru said:

masonic said:

niktheguru said:

savers_united said:

PR will not be an issue for them, at renewel your existing contract ends, you need to enter another 12 mths fix contract, at that point to ask for some kind of proof of EV ownership is fair in my opinion, they have also just increased their customer base by a few hundred thousand. 

Well, of course if they let the tariff end and ask for verification on renewal then that's won't cause anyone an issue as they aren't then moving anyone to a different tariff as their fix has ended. Seems the easiest way to enforce it.

There are no terms that would allow them to do so mid-contract. The only action they can take is to offer non-EV users an alternative tariff at sign-up.

you're probably right, but they have left it vague in their smart tariff terms and conditions: https://octopus.energy/blog/terms-conditions-agile-go/
Although it says that they could move you to an alternative tariff if you do not own or lease an EV, it doesn't state explicitly/clearly that this is only at sign up (but i'm guessing that is what they're implying) . And this was published in October 2020, so not a new thing.

We are discussing minutiae though, and they probably wont chuck anyone off anyway! Lets just hope everyone stays on the tariff they want!  

Ofgem rules prohibit suppliers from throwing customers off fixed rate tariffs or hiking their prices mid-contract (even if it means they go bust as a result - like we have seen recently), see https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/publications/tougher-rules-fixed-term-energy-deals-come-force-ofgems-retail-market-reforms-begin-bite "Suppliers will be banned from increasing prices, or making other changes to fixed term contracts which are to the disadvantage of a customer."

I don't think Octopus' wording is intended to give them latitude here, but even if it was the term would be unenforceable. They do the eligibility test at sign up, and if they wave customers through who they could have rejected, then they are stuck with them for the duration of the fix, unless the customer decides to move off the deal.

Telegraph_Sam

Agreement it seems that retro-excluding non EV customers mid term from existing Go Faster contracts would be at best messy and bad PR if and when it came to enforcement. Renewal of contract is of course a different picture and the supplier is at liberty to set and impose whatever T's & C's he wishes for a new contract, and the consumer takes it or leaves it.

If there is an overall off-peak kWh "limit" at certain times of the day (or night) then some kind of general rationing has to be implemented if demand exceeds supply. It could be understandable if in such circs preference was given to "large" accounts and EV ownership was specified. But the motivation for this stipulation would have to be clear: To maximise kWh consumption per active account, and achieve the admin savings resulting from this. This is quite different from overall load shifting. It puts a different "value" on a kWh used to recharge an EV compared with a kWh running a dishwasher. Each time a non-EV but dish washer owning customer is excluded from the GF tariff, that is so many off-peak kWh's "lost" for a home and reverting to signing up for a standard tariff. Robbing Peter to pay Paul.  A single dishwasher is a minnow compared with an EV, but multiplied by the no of customers in this category the total must amount to a significant figure.

The solution is in the tariff structure. If come the day of reckoning there is an alternative "Go Slightly Faster" tariff with similar benefits for non-EV but medium load shiftable people then both aims could be achieved. The prices per time slot skewed according to availability and the customer can choose for himself which category best fits his circumstances rather than getting tied up with (enforceable?) declarations and definitions.

If this is not how the thinking goes then the question has to be asked: What is the motivation for favouring a kWh that goes into someone's EV compared with the same kWh going into his dishwater, at any given time of day or night ???

masonic

Telegraph_Sam said:

If this is not how the thinking goes then the question has to be asked: What is the motivation for favouring a kWh that goes into someone's EV compared with the same kWh going into his dishwater, at any given time of day or night ???

A kWh that goes into someone's EV translates into a car journey that doesn't produce emissions. The underlying assumption being that someone who doesn't possess an EV probably does possess a polluting vehicle. Clearly not true in all cases, but many. Octopus is incapable, however advanced its tech, to ever design an innovative tariff that could borrow a kWh from a dishwasher during peak times, but they could do so with an EV's battery.

Telegraph_Sam

Debatable to what degree cost per kWh determines people's choice of vehicle, and when. Short term as opposed to long term.
The question remains why Octopus would want to "borrow" ("steal"?) a kWh as you describe since the dishwasher kWh would only have to be generated elsewhere.
I am still pondering this myself rather than come up with any dogmatic answer.

niktheguru

Telegraph_Sam said:

Debatable to what degree cost per kWh determines people's choice of vehicle, and when. Short term as opposed to long term.
The question remains why Octopus would want to "borrow" ("steal"?) a kWh as you describe since the dishwasher kWh would only have to be generated elsewhere.
I am still pondering this myself rather than come up with any dogmatic answer.

It probably lies in the fact that if one ev user decides to shift his charging from one time to another he isn't just moving 1kWh, but moving between 35 to 80 kwh.

The average "dishwasher" uses 1kwh per load. so you'd need 35-80 people to move their usage to be equivalent to 1 ev driver.

So the more ev drivers moved, the more impact it would make to fulfil the load shifting. Yes of course you can also argue that non ev drivers doing load shifting will have an impact, but it's far less and octopus can choose to offer the tariff to whoever they please.

@masonic fair point re ofgem rules on fixed tariffs. Looks like the non ev users are safe for now!:)

masonic

Telegraph_Sam said:

Debatable to what degree cost per kWh determines people's choice of vehicle, and when. Short term as opposed to long term.

Financial nudges work. There's plenty of evidence for it. We're not talking about a small difference in price here, the cost per mile on a standard tariff can be 3-4x what someone can achieve off-peak on Go or Go Faster. It's obviously debatable to what extent any financial incentive determines people's choice of anything, whether it's grants and feed in tariffs for solar panels, discounted season tickets for train commuters, or a cycle-to-work scheme. I'm certain fewer people would possess EVs if there were no subsidies or incentives offered.

Telegraph_Sam said:

The question remains why Octopus would want to "borrow" ("steal"?) a kWh as you describe since the dishwasher kWh would only have to be generated elsewhere.
I am still pondering this myself rather than come up with any dogmatic answer.

A feature of renewables is that they can't be relied on to produce energy when it is needed. We've had plenty of debate in this thread about prices spiking when the wind isn't blowing or the sun isn't shining. Battery storage is going to be an essential part of any renewable energy strategy, and if an energy supplier can outsource some of that storage to its customers it is in a good place.

savers_united

Telegraph_Sam said:

Agreement it seems that retro-excluding non EV customers mid term from existing Go Faster contracts would be at best messy and bad PR if and when it came to enforcement. Renewal of contract is of course a different picture and the supplier is at liberty to set and impose whatever T's & C's he wishes for a new contract, and the consumer takes it or leaves it.

If there is an overall off-peak kWh "limit" at certain times of the day (or night) then some kind of general rationing has to be implemented if demand exceeds supply. It could be understandable if in such circs preference was given to "large" accounts and EV ownership was specified. But the motivation for this stipulation would have to be clear: To maximise kWh consumption per active account, and achieve the admin savings resulting from this. This is quite different from overall load shifting. It puts a different "value" on a kWh used to recharge an EV compared with a kWh running a dishwasher. Each time a non-EV but dish washer owning customer is excluded from the GF tariff, that is so many off-peak kWh's "lost" for a home and reverting to signing up for a standard tariff. Robbing Peter to pay Paul.  A single dishwasher is a minnow compared with an EV, but multiplied by the no of customers in this category the total must amount to a significant figure.

The solution is in the tariff structure. If come the day of reckoning there is an alternative "Go Slightly Faster" tariff with similar benefits for non-EV but medium load shiftable people then both aims could be achieved. The prices per time slot skewed according to availability and the customer can choose for himself which category best fits his circumstances rather than getting tied up with (enforceable?) declarations and definitions.

If this is not how the thinking goes then the question has to be asked: What is the motivation for favouring a kWh that goes into someone's EV compared with the same kWh going into his dishwater, at any given time of day or night ???

As I previously mentioned there will only be x number of customers and slots for each tariff, I think Octopus have already pulled the 8.30 tariff as its fully subscribed and more likely snapped up by those non EV owners. 
Each time Octopus take on a customer they have to assume high amounts of off peak usage the tariff was designed for, but when that customers turns out to use only a fraction of typical EV usage they are stuck with that customer until renewel, so tightening up on sign up and renewel could be the new way forward, don't see them throwing anyone off mid term but their T&Cs may allow for this if you declared you had an EV at sign up, and later to be found to only be using a fraction of off peak electricity of typical EV owner, although I still think they would just wait until renewel to take action.
The new rates are also likely to drive low off peak users away to cheaper peak rate tariffs in future anyway.

Most homes without an EV will struggle to shift large amounts of energy to overnight, appliances fluctuate their energy draw, a Dishwasher may peak at 2kw, but could be less than 500w at times, vehicle charging is a constant draw, mine is pretty much 6kwh for each of the 5 hours of off peak charge.

EV owners will in most instances also shift their home appliance use to these off peak hours where they can, they don't only charge their vehicles, based on my use pre and post EV ownership it would take 10 or more non EV owners to match my off peak usage now as there is only a limited number of appliances that can safely be programmed to run overnight and things like lawnmowers / vacuums / DIY power tools are unlikely to be shifted anyway. 

[Deleted User]

If someone ticks the box for Go/Go Faster and states that they have an EV when they don’t, and six months later the supplier asks for copy of the V5 and one is not produced, then arguably the consumer has breached the terms of the contract, and the supplier would have every right to remove them from the tariff - fixed or not. In this respect, it is no different to someone saying that they agree to a smart meter to get onto a certain tariff, and then when asked to book an appointment, they refuse.

In fairness to Octopus, with perhaps the exception of SEG payments, it takes everything on trust. Other suppliers ask to see the V5.

FWiW, I don’t understand Octopus’ logic when it comes to Go and SEG payments when it is happy to offer match import/export prices on the Tesla Energy Plan. I can mutter to myself about it but I am left with two options: accept the status quo or get my SEG payments from A N Other.

BargainBear

The DNO I work for has been actively developing "big batteries" for a few years to help store the energy created from renewable energies, and we actively help and support connecting these as well. DNO's aren't allowed to keep them as it's classed as generation, but they're sold off to solar farms, EV testing companies etc.

Once renewable energies are more affordable at home, as well as in home battery storage such as Tesla Powerwall's are more affordable as the take up increases, it'll take the load off the grid.

There'll obviously be a period where renewable energy creation carries a premium and you'll be able to make some money selling back to the grid, but that'll slowly plateau as battery technology evolves and they increase the storage capacity of the grid.

Solar technology will also evolve to a point it'll be incorporated into EV's more and more, some older combustion engine Mercs have had solar tech onboard for over 10 years. It'll become cheaper and more realistic to have Tesla roofs, and hopefully spark competitors to create cheaper alternatives, and then the grid will mostly support/supplement heavy users and those that can't afford in home renewable energy generation and storage.

Telegraph_Sam

Granted that the "average" EV owner is likely to have higher consumption than his non-EV counterpart, the question still remains: What is the rationale for "displacing" a dishwasher-kWh with an EV-kWh (excuse the short hand)?  The answer will be different depending on whether limits in off-peak supply have been reached. The presumption is that high offtake (per account) is somehow to be preferred to low offtake.  Other than for admin economics I query this.
I have investigated the domestic battery option (to combine with my solar panels) on various occasions and always concluded that for myself the technology is light years away from being financially viable using normal "investment" criteria.  Things may be different further up the generation chain.