Conversion of M3 to Kwh (as opposed to Khw!)

calorificvalue

MWT said:

... and having reviewed a bunch of my bills I am happy that the calorific value is being correctly truncated.

The only issue is displaying meter readings rounded to one decimal place, but calculated using the actual meter reading.

The impact is purely visual though as the calculation is correct, it is just the displayed rounded values that cause the confusion.

If you are NOT with OCTOPUS, it's no surprise, if you are, be so kind as to take a photo of the 1.02264 calc on a current bill and post it here please. 

calorificvalue

[Deleted User] said:

Just to be clear there is no calorific value rounding. The correct terminology is truncating.

For example, a calorific value of 39.9999 might be rounded to 40 for simplicity. Under Ofgem’s 2014 guidance, 39.9999 would be truncated to 39.9 for billing purposes.

OK, good point, I was not sure if it was truncated or rounded, but......
.
4.1 x 1.02264 x 40.2 / 3.6 = 46.819868 : calculator
4.1 x 1.02264 x 40.2 / 3.6 = 47.2 OCTOPUS
4.1 x 1.02264 x 40.2999 / 3.6 = 46.936 if NOT truncated from maximum 2.2999

Any ideas?

MWT

calorificvalue said:

MWT said:

... and having reviewed a bunch of my bills I am happy that the calorific value is being correctly truncated.

The only issue is displaying meter readings rounded to one decimal place, but calculated using the actual meter reading.

The impact is purely visual though as the calculation is correct, it is just the displayed rounded values that cause the confusion.

If you are NOT with OCTOPUS, it's no surprise, if you are, be so kind as to take a photo of the 1.02264 calc on a current bill and post it here please. 

I am with Octopus and all the details of my bill will show is what you already know, if you use the numbers exactly as printed on the bill the total does not match, but that doesn't mean it is wrong, just that they are not showing all the decimal places used for the meter readings...

[Deleted User]

calorificvalue said:

Dolor said:

Just to be clear there is no calorific value rounding. The correct terminology is truncating.

For example, a calorific value of 39.9999 might be rounded to 40 for simplicity. Under Ofgem’s 2014 guidance, 39.9999 would be truncated to 39.9 for billing purposes.

OK, good point, I was not sure if it was truncated or rounded, but......
.
4.1 x 1.02264 x 40.2 / 3.6 = 46.819868 : calculator
4.1 x 1.02264 x 40.2 / 3.6 = 47.2 OCTOPUS
4.1 x 1.02264 x 40.2999 / 3.6 = 46.936 if NOT truncated from maximum 2.2999

Any ideas?

Yes. The 4.1 is not 4.1, it’s more than that but only shown as 4.1 on the bill.  Just as you have been repeatedly told.

Try, for example, 4.12

[Deleted User]

calorificvalue said:

Dolor said:

Just to be clear there is no calorific value rounding. The correct terminology is truncating.

For example, a calorific value of 39.9999 might be rounded to 40 for simplicity. Under Ofgem’s 2014 guidance, 39.9999 would be truncated to 39.9 for billing purposes.

OK, good point, I was not sure if it was truncated or rounded, but......
.
4.1 x 1.02264 x 40.2 / 3.6 = 46.819868 : calculator
4.1 x 1.02264 x 40.2 / 3.6 = 47.2 OCTOPUS
4.1 x 1.02264 x 40.2999 / 3.6 = 46.936 if NOT truncated from maximum 2.2999

Any ideas?

All the detail is here:

https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/sites/default/files/docs/2014/08/supplier_guidance_on_cv_calculation.pdf

A number of suppliers were using fixed calorific values: not surprisingly, at the higher end of the calorific value range.

The_Green_Hornet

Maybe I am missing something here but shouldn't the calculation shown on the left hand side produce the result shown on the right hand side?

If it doesn't without making assumptions then personally I would expect the calculation or result to be corrected so that it does.

[Deleted User]

The_Green_Hornet said:

Maybe I am missing something here but shouldn't the calculation shown on the left hand side produce the result shown on the right hand side?

If it doesn't without making assumptions then personally I would expect the calculation or result to be corrected so that it does.

That’s the issue - it doesn’t and reading the rules indicates that is shouldn’t.

calorificvalue

The_Green_Hornet said:

Maybe I am missing something here but shouldn't the calculation shown on the left hand side produce the result shown on the right hand side?

If it doesn't without making assumptions then personally I would expect the calculation or result to be corrected so that it does.

Thanks,

I could not agree more. Absolutely spot-on.