Payment for Reducing Peak usage increased to £3 per KWH

ariarnia

[Deleted User] said:

On-the-coast said:

the “game” should be win-win
incentivise usage during off peak…
no particular need to deincentivise peak usage - because if the incentive is high enough people will shift usage. 

No need to make it complicated by linking it to what you did in previous month. 

Or if the incentive is high enough, people will stick with their normal behaviour, with normal peak time usage, and then just run an electric heater in the garden for the off-peak time if that's what you get paid for. 

It's difficult to make a high enough incentive for off peak usage without either paying for reductions (like this is) which is easily gameable, or making peak time completely extortionate.

are you saying you think the incentive would be paying for off peak use? i thought an incentive for off peak use would be slightly discounting energy used at those times which would mean you would still benifit from using less energy overall and benifit more if the energy you did use was at off peak. 

[Deleted User]

ariarnia said:

Deleted_User said:

On-the-coast said:

the “game” should be win-win
incentivise usage during off peak…
no particular need to deincentivise peak usage - because if the incentive is high enough people will shift usage. 

No need to make it complicated by linking it to what you did in previous month. 

Or if the incentive is high enough, people will stick with their normal behaviour, with normal peak time usage, and then just run an electric heater in the garden for the off-peak time if that's what you get paid for. 

It's difficult to make a high enough incentive for off peak usage without either paying for reductions (like this is) which is easily gameable, or making peak time completely extortionate.

are you saying you think the incentive would be paying for off peak use? i thought an incentive for off peak use would be slightly discounting energy used at those times which would mean you would still benifit from using less energy overall and benifit more if the energy you did use was at off peak. 

I think that incentive already exists with all the variations of E7 tariff etc and is clearly not enough.  If you extend the principle of 'peak goes up, off-peak goes down' further, the eventual consequence would be free or negative off-peak (paid to use) and extremely expensive peak.  How far you need to go before it is 'enough' is yet to be determined.

This scheme is slightly different though, it's 'being paid not to use', which has the consequence that the OP identified - you need to be using first to then be paid not to.  That's problematic to me, and also to on-the-coast it seems.

ariarnia

[Deleted User] said:

ariarnia said:

Deleted_User said:

On-the-coast said:

the “game” should be win-win
incentivise usage during off peak…
no particular need to deincentivise peak usage - because if the incentive is high enough people will shift usage. 

No need to make it complicated by linking it to what you did in previous month. 

Or if the incentive is high enough, people will stick with their normal behaviour, with normal peak time usage, and then just run an electric heater in the garden for the off-peak time if that's what you get paid for. 

It's difficult to make a high enough incentive for off peak usage without either paying for reductions (like this is) which is easily gameable, or making peak time completely extortionate.

are you saying you think the incentive would be paying for off peak use? i thought an incentive for off peak use would be slightly discounting energy used at those times which would mean you would still benifit from using less energy overall and benifit more if the energy you did use was at off peak. 

I think that incentive already exists with all the variations of E7 tariff etc and is clearly not enough.  If you extend the principle of 'peak goes up, off-peak goes down' further, the eventual consequence would be free or negative off-peak (paid to use) and extremely expensive peak.  How far you need to go before it is 'enough' is yet to be determined.

This scheme is slightly different though, it's 'being paid not to use', which has the consequence that the OP identified - you need to be using first to then be paid not to.  That's problematic to me, and also to on-the-coast it seems.

yes i understand that and see the same problems with the proposals. but what i was talking about was an alternative way of doing it to incentivise off peak use and also still encourage reduced use.

most people arent on an e7 tariff so something LIKE that tariff or the agile tarrifs could be extended as a scheme everyone with a suitable smart meter during the shortages. 

michaels

QrizB said:

michaels said:

QrizB said:

michaels said:

Thoughts?

My thought is that you shouldn't try to game the system.

Because?  I am helping to keep the lights on for everyone else by using less when supplies are tightest - sounds like altruism to me.

But you're already doing that, for your own benefit:

Currently I am using time shifting to have zero use except for my tariff night rate period (1AM - 6AM).

You're suggesting that you will intentionally make the peak-period load worse for a period so you can then reduce it again when the scheme kicks off.

This seems unethical to me. (You wouldn't happen to be a Conservative MP, would you?)

The way I see it is that I have already invested in storage which is helping reduce peak demand (less load on grid, less use of most carbon intensive electricity). 

It therefore seems unfair that I am excluded from what sounds to be a meaningful reduction in bills just because I am already doing the right thing whereas those who have so far done nothing to move their usage away from peak to lower grid stress, lower carbon usage can reap a huge reward by doing so now.

Perhaps they could pay me £3 per kwh to discharge my battery back to the grid during this period rather than just balancing my own use - after all the net impact of me exporting or my neighbour using less has to be the same.  Would that be morally ok?

ariarnia

michaels said:

QrizB said:

michaels said:

QrizB said:

michaels said:

Thoughts?

My thought is that you shouldn't try to game the system.

Because?  I am helping to keep the lights on for everyone else by using less when supplies are tightest - sounds like altruism to me.

But you're already doing that, for your own benefit:

Currently I am using time shifting to have zero use except for my tariff night rate period (1AM - 6AM).

You're suggesting that you will intentionally make the peak-period load worse for a period so you can then reduce it again when the scheme kicks off.

This seems unethical to me. (You wouldn't happen to be a Conservative MP, would you?)

The way I see it is that I have already invested in storage which is helping reduce peak demand (less load on grid, less use of most carbon intensive electricity). 

It therefore seems unfair that I am excluded from what sounds to be a meaningful reduction in bills just because I am already doing the right thing whereas those who have so far done nothing to move their usage away from peak to lower grid stress, lower carbon usage can reap a huge reward by doing so now.

anyone who is a lower than average user isn't being rewarded for there low use as they would have less energy to shift from peak times than higher users. doesn't mean your justified to game the system just because you can. you can try it and no one can stop you but doesn't mean its ethical. 

Hysteron

Investment in storage costs, batteries wear out and have to be replaced. Those investing in such systems at their own cost are not "gaming the system" in any way.

Krakkkers

John Nash won a nobel prize for game theory in 1994

ariarnia

Hysteron said:

Investment in storage costs, batteries wear out and have to be replaced. Those investing in such systems at their own cost are not "gaming the system" in any way.

investing in a system and using it is not gaming the system. changing your usage patern intentionally to take maximum advantage of a promotion at a time of national crisis is. this is not magic money from nowhere. this is money that will be paid for by all users and the tax payer. i'm not saying they can't do it (i've no way of stopping them). i'm just saying trying to justify it because they 'deserve' to benifit because they've been 'good' until now is naff.  

Chrysalis

Only two suppliers interested, and its well hidden away on Octopus website, I actually had to google it with some specific words, one also has to apply to take part.  No wonder they said not many were interested, I expect most dont even know the scheme exists.

Its not mentioned on Octopus website whether it requires a specific tariff, but has been mentioned on MSE that to benefit from this you need high peak hours load in the first place, if you already light at peak, you have little to shift.

The apply link is here.

https://octopus.energy/blog/results-big-dirty-turn-down-trial-paid-off-peak-energy/

badger09

Chrysalis said:

Only two suppliers interested, and its well hidden away on Octopus website, I actually had to google it with some specific words, one also has to apply to take part.  No wonder they said not many were interested, I expect most dont even know the scheme exists.

Its not mentioned on Octopus website whether it requires a specific tariff, but has been mentioned on MSE that to benefit from this you need high peak hours load in the first place, if you already light at peak, you have little to shift.

The apply link is here.

https://octopus.energy/blog/results-big-dirty-turn-down-trial-paid-off-peak-energy/

Thanks for the link. As we currently don’t use much during the time period mentioned (16.30 - 18.30) there seems little point registering interest. Apart from curiosity of course.