Half hourly data settlement

Scot_39

Or is in fact totally accurate and not misleading at all, and reveals their true goals.

Just ask yourself why Ofgem has already seen fit to weaken DAPF protection to 1/2 hourly data access for many domestic users, from opt in to opt out and removed it completely for small micro businesses in order to support migration to HHS. 

Iirc on meter or supplier switches  - but not sur re tariffs now even.  And one posters reply when mentioned that recently suggested even that new level of protection has been changed - weakened if not removed - since.

Ildhund

Scot_39 said:

Or is in fact totally accurate and not misleading at all ... 

Sorry. but that's nonsense. The document claims that MHHS will "enable new offerings such as time-of-use tariffs". This misleads anyone unfamiliar with how smart metering works to believe that unless he opts for half-hourly settlement, he won't have access to ToU tariffs. 
  

Scot_39 said:

Just ask yourself why Ofgem has already seen fit to weaken DAPF protection to 1/2 hourly data access for many domestic users, from opt in to opt out ...

Ofgem's reasoning, based on consultation with the industry as well as charities and other consumer groups, is clearly laid out here: Consultation on access to half-hourly electricity data for settlement purposes: Ofgem decision and response to stakeholder feedback. I still can't see why any ordinary domestic consumer would object to MHHS.

Scot_39

Half hourly data protection existed for a reason.


And selective biased polling - to push an agenda - of course many people think things like bank data more important than energy 1/2hrly data.  And even the stats on sharing to save are not overwhelmingly positive.

But thats not the point.

There are literally millions of homes without smart meters - and many who still resist even today.


Where micro businesses have led - domestic import opt out can easily follow.

As it has already done for domestic export.

And once applied to mhhs, may well easily extend to billing.



Under a govt that promised big savings but to date has done nothing but increase costs on energy bills, including during the next cap period except perhaps for tge c2.7m extra on whd.

When df dd cap for Oct is up £35 despite a £16 drop in wholesale costs.  That £51 extra on average - largely due to govt policy.

And a regulator whos boss was rewarded for failing on smart meter roll out, on rts replacement target date and on 30 failed firms and so c£100 SoLR costs on average for every consumer.

You can take a more charitable approach on the direction of travel  - I choose not to.


And others who were really concerned - will be even more so now.  That line - probably just about as perfect a statement for them to hang their hat on as could have been written.  A real gift to the remaining I suspect millions of smart meter refuseniks.

I'm on a tou tariff - e10 - was before on my rts metering - it's hours not that dissimilar to Cosy Octopus variant. 

I just dont like Ofgem presumption that it has the right to drag us all into an industry led initiative- based on their vague and varying over the years promises of savings. 
And like switch to save - the clear implication again I that statement - is thst only those who play their game will benefit. 
And sorry just as switch to save failed to engage them - no worse actualky helped cost them £100 in SoLR costs - can see any such industry offerings coming from MHHS failing them to - and that often customers who are the most needy and vulnerable.

Qyburn

Scot_39 said:

Half hourly data protection existed for a reason.

In reality what is the privacy issue in having your H/H data included in the total? Are you under the impression that the settlement data will consist of lists of H/H data each with an identified end user, rather than just a total for each H/H?

I'll bet that the DNO or transmission operators can grab measurements a lot quicker and with better than H/H precision.

Scot_39

Qyburn said:

Scot_39 said:

Half hourly data protection existed for a reason.

In reality what is the privacy issue in having your H/H data included in the total? Are you under the impression that the settlement data will consist of lists of H/H data each with an identified end user, rather than just a total for each H/H?

I'll bet that the DNO or transmission operators can grab measurements a lot quicker and with better than H/H precision.

Did you take time to read the Ofgem HHS consultation link provided.

You would realise this isn't about what is given to the generators - but what else that data can be used for - and what could happens to those who don't consent.

Its not about my data for half hourly settlement - it is the potential inevitable end point - and not for me - but for poor and vulnerable households that Ofgem have failed to protect in the past - completely failed by years of switch to save mantra.

Read the responses to the Ofgem HHS consultation as per the link above - its not some personal viewpoint or paranoia - its a real world concern expressed in the responses to it - the legitimate concerns from some sources about what might happen - what might be the consequence of MHHS for some domestic users - who do not take part - and that is clearly stated as some may in fact be expected to pay higher rates.

And dont get me started on those advocating mandatory access on a personal level to HH data.

Just arguably as happened with switch to save - and why Ofgem had to introduce the cap itself when it was clear switch to save wasn't in fact helping / protecting millions of households.

Like everything with a fixed set of costs - and a fixed pool of contributors to pay for it - like the advocates of zero SC found from Ofgems first and second response - they have no way of cutting the bills without external funding / authorisation to increase cross subsidy - as Labour just have for the £17 extra added for WHD extension. 

Unless the savings from MHHS were to genuinely protect us all - those who pay less end up cross subsidised by others who end up having to pay more.

And the sentences from the industries own page - actually echoes the precise nature of those concerns expressed in some of those negative responses - give us the clearest public statement yet as to what the industries goal could be. 

So when they say "all", when they say "when and how" we consume and they say participation "key" to getting a benefit - that arguably completely vindicates those expressed concerns - that unless you sign up to a dynamic TOU tariff based on HHS - you may end up with no benefit - so pay higher bills than others - even if your use profile is exactly the same.

Qyburn

Scot_39 said:

Qyburn said:

Scot_39 said:

Half hourly data protection existed for a reason.

In reality what is the privacy issue in having your H/H data included in the total? Are you under the impression that the settlement data will consist of lists of H/H data each with an identified end user, rather than just a total for each H/H?

I'll bet that the DNO or transmission operators can grab measurements a lot quicker and with better than H/H precision.

Did you take time to read the Ofgem HHS consultation link provided.

Are you referring to this bit .. "This is because MHHS will allow accurate signals to be sent to suppliers about the cost of serving their customers every day."  If so that doesn't make any sense. Suppliers already know the HH data from each of their customers whether or not it's also used for settlement.

To restate the question, in what way is my privacy breached by some organisation knowing the total consumption of all of Octopus' customers added together into a single figure?  If you were given that information, what can you learn about me?

Scot_39

Qyburn said:

Scot_39 said:

Qyburn said:

Scot_39 said:

Half hourly data protection existed for a reason.

In reality what is the privacy issue in having your H/H data included in the total? Are you under the impression that the settlement data will consist of lists of H/H data each with an identified end user, rather than just a total for each H/H?

I'll bet that the DNO or transmission operators can grab measurements a lot quicker and with better than H/H precision.

Did you take time to read the Ofgem HHS consultation link provided.

Are you referring to this bit .. "This is because MHHS will allow accurate signals to be sent to suppliers about the cost of serving their customers every day."  If so that doesn't make any sense. Suppliers already know the HH data from each of their customers whether or not it's also used for settlement.

To restate the question, in what way is my privacy breached by some organisation knowing the total consumption of all of Octopus' customers added together into a single figure?  If you were given that information, what can you learn about me?

Why do suppliers know my half hourly data - for what purposes have they been granted it's use and by whom ?

I am aware of what permissions my suppliers have from me - that will be none.

And the permitted use of any such data without my permission - is or was restricted under DAPF.  And as I havent opted in to settlement - it is not for that prupose either.

As the linked consultation makes clear - as some merely wanted HSS use added to the prescribed uses permitted - to end any need to seek permissions - so it hasn't been.

The whole premise that this is a properly researched and accepted move is false, and clearly raises real questions in respect of where the smart meter roll out itself - whether the UK is actually even ready for it - or ever will be in fact.

And similarly despite not a commonly held position by others in this thread - there is yet clearer evidence of a significant number of people who even with smart meters - really do object to high resolution data sharing - and not just of half hourly but in fact even daily measurements from their meters under the existing DAPF framework.  At one supplier as of the date 18% had opted out of the default daily. And at that time smart meter "refuseniks" had plenty of options to refuse smart meters - for any reason - there was no mandation (legally their still is no act of parliament - unlike say in France or Germany) , no EOL guidance / defacto imposition etc.

As the responses and Ofgem comments shows a complete lack of analytical / study evidence to show that the system is even viable - even at current 2025 - let alone the then smart meter roll out levels - that there are enough with working / reporting smart meters - and enough of those with reporting smart meters willing to share the data - even for HHS basis - to make it viable.

In fact one supplier who willingly shared their current consumer choices - gave their opt out of daily to monthly figures - at 18% - and note thats not even opt out of half hourly to daily - figures is so high - that if was to reflect in HHS data access figures - would significantly distort settlement - an estimate one supplier put at around the 10-20% missing data level.

Well guess what as of govt Q1 2025 stats - only 61% in total meters - strictly would need the electric numbers -  have operating smart meters capable of sharing that data even if people were willing to - thats 39% almost double the best case scenario in that 10-20% range before the exercise is likely to end up "significantly distorted".

And on that basis alone then and even now as of Q1 anyway - seems likely the UK simply isn't ready for HHS.

And again the c9% of installed smart meters not operating smartly - 3.5m - is already nearly equivalent to the optimistic level of required participation drop out for "significant distorted" system - let alone the true participation needed to provide a decent settlement system.  And why so many suppliers wanted mandatory.

No the document is in fact full of references on where some would like the system to end up and the risks - including but not limited too - 

To DAPF itself

"It would be preferable in their view if the review was wider in scope and included access to data for other purposes, including billing, all together as one package."

To the smart meter roll out itself

"The point was made that removing this choice may result in consumers instead refusing to accept a smart
meter in the first place"

Lack of analysis on what level of metering and then of those on smart - what access level of HH data actually is required for the MHHS system to work at all

"Coupled with that, the point was made that there is also no firm data on what percentage of HH data entered into the system would be required to achieve the benefit"

Contrary to the biased polling results issued along with the consultation - making pointless comparisons with banking and other private date - there is in fact very clear resistance to sharing half hourly and even daily information - with suppliers - and that percentage is towards the high end of their view of what would "significantly" distort settlement - and thats with a fall back to daily - not the 18% opting for monthly in one case.

"For example, one supplier noted that 18% of
their customers were choosing to opt-out of allowing access to their daily data.
There is a risk expressed by some stakeholders that opt-out rates would likely be
higher for HH data than for daily data, as consumers would regard it as more
personal. One supplier noted that, in their opinion, 10-20% of consumers opting out
of sharing their data would significantly distort settlement"

The risk to the vulnerable and high medical / health related users - those unable to shift use - and their energy costs

"be aware of the potential impact on vulnerable consumers,
particularly those who are high peak users and may be unable to alter their
consumption patterns"

"Several stakeholders recognised the risk that some consumers with a high-peak
profile may opt out of sharing their data for settlement, resulting in a large
proportion of these users being settled on a traditional NHH profile and distorting
the settlement process. Some responses also noted that suppliers could game the
system by encouraging suspected high-peak users to opt out of sharing their data
for settlement, otherwise they will be more expensive to supply. The only solution
suggested in mitigation was for a mandatory regime"

"One large supplier identified the risk that suppliers may target different tariff offers to certain consumers in order to limit their exposure depending on the consumer’s data sharing preferences, for example

expensive flat tariffs to suspected high peak opt-out consumers"

"a two-tiered market may emerge where those who share gain, and those who don’t lose
out"

Spreading the access to data even more quickly than Ofgem want to - for an unproven system - it's words not mine - to all existing smart - not just in future on new meters, new contracts etc

"The majority of stakeholders did not agree with our position, instead arguing that
these customers be switched across to the same arrangement as all new consumers
accepting smart / advanced meters at the point at which it takes effect"

In short we - and Ofgem - are being continuously pushed by the industry towards an unproven system - with scant evidence it will work in the favour of many - if not in fact any - consumer to significantly lower our bills - let alone those willing to take part - given the state of the smart meter rollout in the UK - and the publics attitude to data sharing amongst those who had even in early days of smets2 rollout at the time of that exercise - opted into smart.

Its the wrong focus when almost daily other charges other features of our energy market - our rush to net zero, our electricity cost 1/2 hourly bid system etc need far more radical review.

The switched on can choose their risks rewards for themselves currently - many cannot - and with a march to TOU make no mistake - their is a real risk MHHS is going to exclude those who cannot time shift from benefiting - say those who chose daily tracker or fixed TOU rather than agile.

Ofgem at all times should arguably in fact be working far harder for those who cannot or do not take on such savings.  

And sorry but everything I read on MHHS - shows that it is definitely not going to help those who are not switched on / engaged - but like switch to save - only those who can and chose to - but this time that is very likely to be a narrower subset of those who can save under old switch to save - as that may well ultimately only include those who can time shift.

Qyburn

Scot_39 said:

Qyburn said:

Scot_39 said:

Qyburn said:

Scot_39 said:

Half hourly data protection existed for a reason.

In reality what is the privacy issue in having your H/H data included in the total? Are you under the impression that the settlement data will consist of lists of H/H data each with an identified end user, rather than just a total for each H/H?

I'll bet that the DNO or transmission operators can grab measurements a lot quicker and with better than H/H precision.

Did you take time to read the Ofgem HHS consultation link provided.

Are you referring to this bit .. "This is because MHHS will allow accurate signals to be sent to suppliers about the cost of serving their customers every day."  If so that doesn't make any sense. Suppliers already know the HH data from each of their customers whether or not it's also used for settlement.

To restate the question, in what way is my privacy breached by some organisation knowing the total consumption of all of Octopus' customers added together into a single figure?  If you were given that information, what can you learn about me?

Why do suppliers know my half hourly data - for what purposes have they been granted it's use and by whom ?

Well obviously I was writing on the presumption that your supplier does have your H/H data, because again obviously if they don't then they can't pass it on for settlement.

So let's rephrase that question that I keep asking, and you won't answer. My supplier collects and holds my H/H data. If my supplier passed on to you, or anyone else, the total consumption of their whole customer base on a H/H basis, what have you learned about me?

We've had the comment, attributed to Ovo "The data used for settlement is combined and anonymised to ensure individual customer privacy" Are you sticking to your idea that this is incorrect, and they'll actually pass on each end user's data individually?

Scot_39

No - and I have no idea where you think I have ever said such a thing.

As stated above this isn't a simple question about access - it isn't just about the data - it is about what the industry clearly want to do with it.

Just wait until the industry trial period results start blaiming too little access to data.

And you will note the thirs point in the summary response

"We have decided to rule out pursuing either of the enhanced privacy options as part of the
Settlement Reform project."

mmmmikey

Hi @Scot_39 so just to clarify something else. You say your concern is about what the industry clearly wants to do with the data. Ofgem's stated aim is that they want to move to HHS to give the suppliers more incentive to introduce/support TOU tariffs that all customers benefit from. Is this the cause of your concern (because you don't believe all customers will benefit) or is your thinking that this isn't the real reason that HHS is being pushed and your theory is the energy suppliers are actually conspiring to force everyone to pay surge pricing or some other sort of TOU pricing against their will. Or both?