Is the smart meter roll-out a good idea?
When we launched our smart meter challenge, we were surprised by how many said they didn’t want one at all. And although we support the roll-out, we’re working hard to tackle the issues that could be bad for consumers.
Many of you clearly have concerns about smart meters, which is why we’re campaigning on this issue and will be for some time to come. But overall we think there are significant benefits.
How smart meters can benefit us
In a market where we’ve heard a lot about innovation but seen little of it, this new metering technology is a real improvement. We’ll get accurate bills and we’ll all be able to better understand how we use energy. There should also be improvements to the market, as companies can better balance the grid to match energy demand.
Commenter Mike D presented two examples of how smart meters could help his family – a smart meter could have identified his daughter’s faulty fridge freezer as the cause of her excessive quarterly bill. And daily readings could stop his elderly father from worrying about surprise sky-high bills.
However, Phil rightly pointed out that there are concerns about smart meters, ‘Which? should be addressing these matters, not providing an unqualified approval.’ So I’m here to explain why our approval isn’t unqualified and what we’re doing to ensure the roll-out benefits consumers.
Is the roll-out happening too soon?
The most immediate issue with smart meters stems from the fact that companies are rolling them out early – before consumer benefits have been agreed and explained, and before universal standards are in place.
It isn’t right that suppliers can roll-out meters that aren’t up to spec and expect you to pay if and when they need to be replaced. We think that any company that does this should bear the cost of upgrading or replacing them when the government does decide on a universal standard – it was their commercial decision to roll-out early, so they should shoulder the risk.
This also goes for the problem of switching energy suppliers. Commenter Ron asked, ‘will each supplier have a propriety system, resulting in a re-installation cost if you switch?’ Having a smart meter shouldn’t make it more difficult for you to switch, which is why we’re continuing to push for a universal standard.
Why are we paying when energy companies benefit?
In our previous Convo, Paul Moran said ‘The people who are going to profit from them year after year are the energy companies who will save on meter reading.’
Others are also worried that if we reduce our energy consumption by using an energy monitor, suppliers will just raise prices again. Otherwise, why would suppliers be interested in us using less of their energy?
To tackle this, we’re making sure that Ofgem and the government keep a close eye on the prices energy companies charge after the roll-out. Plus, energy companies are now making new profits by helping us use less energy, like selling us insulation and solar panels.
Do I have to have one?
Some of you are also concerned that you’ll be forced into getting a smart meter before you’re ready for one. But at the moment it’s important to note that you do not need to have one installed, even if you’re offered it. This may change in the future, but in the meantime we’ll continue to work with government and energy companies to make sure consumers are heard and protected throughout the roll-out.
Our ‘no selling, just installing’ campaign is just one part of our on-going work on smart meters, and we will continue to launch campaigns for the different elements when it is appropriate, so I hope that you’ll all continue to be as actively engaged in this issue.
In the meantime, do you think there are any areas where Which?, the government or your energy supplier could be doing more to inform people about smart meters?
Post a Comment
Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked
Messenger
Sorry for a second posting! Just a couple of factual matters that may help the debate.
Data collected in this country may be stored and processed in the U.K. and the E.U. where is it is covered by the the E.U. version of the Data Protection Act. However data collected in this country may be stored and processed OUTSIDE of the E.U. For example, on behalf of the Driving Standards Agency, data such as name, address, credit card details and driving theory test information is held in the USA under something know as ‘safe harbor’ (it is know by its american spelling). In my opinion this offers rather fewer safeguards to data subject than the E.U. version.
I believe that electricity companies replaced electricity meters as a matter of course after a certain number of years, simply because they became less accurate because of wear. Is the Smart Meter roll-out cost somewhat covered by this wear replacement?
These two items may affect how some people view the Smart Meter debate. Can WHICH? provide a view?
Blair Breton
The cost of meter replacement should be born by the suppliers, a) as part of the standing charge, b) as you say by meter replacement programme in my opinion. I also support very much that data must not leave the UK, and not be stored by some trans-national company or a company wholely based abroad. Customers should also a statutory right to examine all the information the energy company is keeping about them, and will disclose this for nothing to a customer or say for £2 fee as for Credit Reference info.
Nikki Whiteman
Hi messenger – I’m not the best person to answer but I’ve asked our resident Data Protection lawyer to have a look at your answer and get back to you. Unfortunately she’s away at the moment but will happily take a look on Monday and tell you what she thinks.
Hans Kueller
Terrorist/State blacks out your street/city/country.
I see that one “smart” meter is made by Siemens whose fairly ubiquitous chips were hacked
(probably by a state) so that equipment could be shut down.
Not just Siemens, though. Specifications for all chips & software would be published and known to installation/maintenance engineers. Perhaps the part of the software to shut down areas (by govt or energy suppliers) would not be so widely known but would provide an easy way to implement a hack.
The mesh connection provides a brilliant breeding ground for worms, viruses, etc.
Any comments from designers/makers/installers?
If I go the way of others who have commented unfavourably against govt depts/industrial giants, I would hope that Which? would investigate my untimely demise.
Simon Evans
The smart meters proposed for the UK will be able to disconnect the power supply remotely. OFGEM’s discussion of this feature is mostly concerned with prepayment metering, and does not address the issues you raise.
I am more worried about the electricity company cutting off my supply (or capping it at some level, which the meters can also do) deliberately, or by accident, than about hackers or terrorists interfering with it. But even if they don’t control my electricity consumption absolutely they are still going to try and play with it – otherwise why collect all the data?
The more I read on this subject (and there have been many illuminating comments) the more it seems that it is like the now defunct ID card programme. it looks like a good idea at the start, but as you realise what it entails you no longer want to be involved.
I don’t mind sending my meter readings to my supplier over the internet (I do it now) – but that’s about it.
David Ramsay
I have submitted an e-petition, it may take a couple of hours to come alive, please sign it and get the objections visible to government since Which seem to be somewhat lacking in this support.
Blair Breton
Can you please give the name of the e-petition as there over 100 on the site.
David Ramsay
E-petition is not yet visible, I am told it can take up to 7 days, will post when I see it
Daver22
It is now the 13th of August and either they are ignoring it or they are taking their time.
It is a real shame that the e-petitions system doesn’t list hose waiting approval!
I am considering creating a new one as it seems that the other may have got ‘lost’!
Daver22
I am now absolutely convinced that members of Which have been brainwashed into supporting the MANDATORY rollout of the smart meters. Yes its MANDATORY, AKA we have no option but to support it, the decision has been made.
I have read the documentation available about the strategy and how the government and OFGEM wish to influence the outcome positively and that if the access rate is 30% this would increase costs by £383M compared with an access rate of 60%.
It seems to me that Which is being bamboozled into supporting the rollout since words used appear to almost mirror the spin being written in those documents.
As yet I have NOT come across a single bit of information discussing health issues associated with the increased use of this metering in this documentation.
Come on Which board have the courage to champion the consumer and not be lackeys of the corporations, or are you too afraid of losing some influence?
Pauline Hopkins
Smart meters are just making the companies lazy, and cutting employment levels.
I cannot see anything different than we have now.
Just another EU rule or regulation. I am sick of the EU imposing their will on our country.
Just leave us alone.
We still have to pay for the either the gas or electric regardles of what a meter reads.
Mr Cameron, please can we have some say in what we do, not just yopu.
David Ramsay
Personally I would object purely on grounds that it is being forced on us by the UNELECTED EU spivs so that they can line their pockets now that most energy companies in UK are foreign owned.
Tel them to go forth I say.
Simon Evans
The EU can’t impose “their will” as we are a part of the EU. It is not “them and us” just “us.”
David Ramsay
Well you can be “us” if you want, but I didn’t agree with the level of interference so it is THEM!
But that is off subject and another argument later.
David Ramsay
You might all like to review the fine print of this EU document;
http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/consultations/eceed/eceed.aspx
… To understand why there is no counter argument being presented by anyone, damned EU interference yet again!
Simon Evans
Having studied this document it doe snot look like Eu interference so much as a carefully worded attempt to reduce energy consumption by fairly modest amounts having regard to the international agreements to which the EU jointly and the UK individually are parties.
I m not clear if, as part of this Directive, the UK is required to introduce smart meters, and would be grateful for enlightenment on that point. It is noteworthy that the benefits claimed by OFGEM for smart meters can be achieved by energy monitors, and I wonder if they (or, indeed, the EU) understand the difference.
Dave D
Leaving aside the contentious issues of whether MEP’s and the Parliament to which they belong are elected or not and whether we should be in the EU or not, it looks to me as though Article 8 of the document on the link provided by David Ramsey is the only place where Smart Metering is mentioned. I can see no mention of Smart Metering being “necessary” to reduce consumption (I did skim read, apologies if I’ve missed it) but I do note that from Jan 1st 2015 energy bills have to be accurate and based on consumption – which to me indicates the banning of Estimated Bills.
Given that the meter reading agencies are well know to NOT do their job and make it often impossible for bills to be accurate, even when the householder was in to let the reader in or when the meter is in an outside cabinet, I would suggest that the rush to embrace Smart Meters is to get round the problem of the privatised readers being, in a word, useless.
This can, of course, be achieved in a number of other ways, not least by re-nationalising the utilities and bringing meter reading back into the direct control of the utilities, but that won’t happen in my lifetime I don’t think and it most certainly **can’t** happen in time for the 2015 date given in the document by which accurate billing has to be in place.
However, we don’t need Smart Meters to do the job and we absolutely don’t need meters that can disconnect the supply or provide continuous or frequent interval readings.
Which? and we should now be campaigning ferociously to stop SmartMeters in their present form and to extract cast iron guarantees from the Government and the Utilities that any meters that are installed do not have the facility built into them to allow disconnection (i.e. that they don’t have switching contacts inside – which should be attractive as that will make them cheaper to manufacture and less liable to failure) and that readings are limited to at most once per week – which will go some way towards addressing the health concerns over the continuous transmission signals.
These steps won’t do anything to address the data security concerns, nor the concerns about us being spied upon by the utilities and hackers / burglars – these issues still need to be addressed but IMHO are marginally less important than ensuring that remote disconnection is impossible and that readings are not continuous or high frequency.
Like everyone else, I still await with interest an explanation from Which? as to why they are NOT (yet) campaigning in this direction and a date on which they will start to do so.
David Ramsay
@daved: that was my feeling with the article 8, but I didn’t want to give a prompt just to see if someone else picked up on it.
You might like ( actually you all should ) read the draft specification for the meters which was published 2 days ago – http://www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/11/tackling-climate-change/smart-meters/2393-smart-metering-industrys-draft-tech.pdf
This is an eyeopener and will fuel everyone’s fears, I am only half way through but Which really need to take heed and start supporting the population.
We as a people have NOT signed up to this but based on dates etc in the other documents I have downloaded then the responsibility lies with the last Labour government as most of the initial design work was carried out before the general election.
There is NO Mandate for the introduction at all and I want to see Which respond properly. I note also that Which were not part of the working party drawing up the specification and so it is no wonder that most of the spec is to satisfy industry and government.
STOP SMART METERS NOW!
David Ramsay
@simonevans: I have not forgotten about your post, I think my last post URL may go some way toward the ‘mandated’ answer you are seeking.
There is another reference but I need to dig it out. Will hopefully get back to you in the near future on that one.
David Ramsay
@simonevans : http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/tackling/smart_meters/smart_meters.aspx
Dave D
Prompted by the content of the link posted by David Ramsey, but also thinking back to earlier posts, IF (and to me it’s a very big if) SmartMeter installation forges ahead unchallenged and we all get teh damned things, there needs to be a massive re – think and policy change regarding the feed in of renewable energy generated in our homes.
Firstly if the SM’s are going to contain switches allowing remote disconnection, what, pray, will happen when someone with a Solar PV installation is generating excess electricity, their SM has disconnected them from the grid and so that excess is not used buy the Grid? I can place a fairly sure bet that under such a circumstance the Government will refuse to make the FITs payment and when the disconnection is proved to be an error or the result of malicious hacking I am certain that the Government will say “Tough, not our problem, no FITs payment”.
Quite apart from being immoral (but fully expected from Energy co’s and Government) I can see that giving rise to legal battles over the 25 year guarantee of FITs payments. I foresee even bigger problems when this scenario occurs in a property with the “rent a roof” type of Solar PV where the company installing it gets the FITs payments. Doubtless the company will then try to reclaim the missing FITs from the house owner and / or try to sue them for breach of contract.
Secondly there is the incredibly serious issue of people with life threatening long term illnesses which is controlled by life supporting medical equipment which requires mains electricity. It won’t look all that good on Which? when, after a few fatalities caused by erroneous or malicious disconnection, they start to wring their hands, cry crocodile tears and commence a retrospective campaign to have SM’s removed or replaced with non-switching models.
The more I learn about these SM’s the more I am certain that they are a time-bomb of horrendous issues and that they need to be stopped NOW.
Simon Evans
@David Ramsay
The 295 pp meter specification is probably more than most people need or can understand. Most Which? readers might want to know that it is envisaged transmitting data every 10 seconds (if I have correctly understood). They may also want to look at the 15 page table starting on p280 that details all the many events smart meters will take account of – especially the section dealing with changes to permissible loads starting on p285.
Daver22
I have not got to p280 yet, you either read fast or don’t like specs.
I agree the 295 pages is a lot but I am used to reviewing specifications of this size and identifying issues with them.
In this instance I will be looking for security weaknesses with a view to testing them if I am unlucky enough to be forced to have such a system installed.
After all I am a software test professional and this is a great challenge!
Simon Evans
@Daver22
This is a technical spec. As far as I can see (I skimmed through it) almost no consideration has been given to major software issues, many of which are left to “others” to sort out. There is a need (coming from the EU?) to conform to FIPS140-2 but nothing about how the meter itself will check the authorisation of all requests and commands (except that it is supposed to!).
This document is clearly an electricity supply production. Software issues are mostly skipped over. I don’t think anyone in the software industry would have approached smart metering this way.
David Ramsay
In principle I agree but I have seen many high level specs in my time and that is what we have here. The details of the software will be covered in individual detailed specs later or will reference standards which are already available or in the process of being produced.
Also we must consider the target of the requirement – try zigbee.com and zigbee alliance – they are mentioned once that I can see and they are suppliers of the devices in USA for home and commercial automation.
Can I suggest that perhaps this is all a stichup to ensure that only one supplier can supply.
Dave D
Just skimmed through it fairly fast (took about 90 minutes).
With my CITP hat back on this looks like shoddy workmanship (I know it is only a draft) with, as Simon Evans says, scant (or nil) recognition of software and malfunction issues and absolutely no indication whatsoever that dealing with any such issues has been considered at all.
Both with and without my CITP hat this document DOES make it absolutely clear that the purpose of the SM’s will be to monitor and control the householder to an extent which makes George Orwell’s writings seem very tame indeed.
I’m very unconvinced of the functionality actually working in the real world: I’ve seen many GCSE IT project proposals which look less fanciful but were, when the student actually attempted design and implementation, utterly unrealistic. This has a distinct flavour of fantasy about it. (But with my cynical hat on I’d follow that by saying “just look at the ID card fiasco, the NHS computer fiasco and the Flight Control IT fiasco to see three quite recent examples of Government Departments living in cloud cuckoo land and wasting billions on IT, so what do you expect?”)
However, brushing aside all technicalities and all remarks about the professionalism or otherwise of the specification, what screams out above all else is that all the people who have posted concerns on here about data security, hacking and concerns over potential disconnection are absolutely right and have every just reason to be worried. Which? needs to start fighting their corner very urgently (as we keep asking them to do).
I do forsee one other safety issue which I don’t thnink has been dealt with as far as I could see. There is provison for gas meters to cut off the suypply. There is also mention of monitoring taht shoudl detect an unrestricted flow of gas when teh supply is restored and which would shut it off again if such flow was detected. This sounds like a clever idea for detecting tghe theft of a gas pipe from the outsid eof a property, for example, but I have grave concerns over the millions of cookers, gas fires and older boilers in use up and down teh country which don’t have flame failure devices but which would, if the gas was cut off whilst they were in use, allow **Restricted** but UNLIT flow of gas once the supply came back on, had the customer not thought to switch off the gas taps in the meantime. It sounds as though the clever proposal for detecting flow and cutting off the supply woudl not be triggered in such an instance, leaving people’s homes (most likely the elderly and most vulnerable for medical / disability reasons) to fill with gas and lead to the disasters that we can all imagine in such a case.
We all know that such gas disasters CAN happen now, but if the supply is remotely cut off for whatever reason its a hell of a ot more likely to happen that it is now.
Which? needs to do some serious work on this and I’d suggest that the starting point is consultation with the likes of Age Concern and charities for the disabled such as Leonard Cheshire.
Mark my words: the specification we have now got easy access to suggests the installation of booby traps into every home in the UK.
David Ramsay
Agree totally – let’s get started on pushing Which until they are prepared to explain themselves.
Damn Young
It would be easy to listen in on smart meter traffic. If someone can crack the security, that gives them access to all the meters in the area.
David Ramsay
@damnyoung: strangely I have just been given the task as my companies security test expert, nice challenge eh!
Damn Young
Thanks David Ramsey for finding these documents. I had a scan through the first one. It describes the minimum that a smart meter must do, but it does not put any limit on the intrusion into privacy. Elsewhere, the meters are said to log consumption patterns at half hourly intervals, but that is nonsense. Although the data might be transmitted half hourly, it will be captured and timestamped to seconds. Also the document does describe the possibility of a bridge between the smart meter, and your ‘private’ domestic WiFi network. I researched Zigbee technology for a job interview I mentioned way back.
David Ramsay
@damnyoung and everyone who has mentioned my name in full: can I point out that it RamsAy and not Ramsey. Pedantic old me again!
A lot of what has been said this weekend should give Which or should it be What something to think about.
I have to take exception to being called a Luddite but what is being proposed is being specified by morons with nothing better to do, they are probably saying we need a spec let’s get it put together as quickly as possible and don’t worry about the detail it has to be implemented in 3 years.
Well I have news for them, the spec as defined will take far longer to implement if you don’t already have the trained people to do these installations, I would suggest that it will in most instances take 0.5 Md to install and test a single meter including travelling etc.
20,000,000 homes * 2 meters for most = 20,000,000 Md
Assuming 5 days a week and a 7 hour day then that is;
4,000,000 Mw / 50 ( makes it easier) = 80,000 My
Now we have 3 years starting from end of 2011 to implement
80,000 / 3 = between 25,000 and 30,000 employees all highly trained all corgi registered ( anyone know how long the corgi training takes and costs?).
Now I know that this is a rough calculation but it just ain’t going to happen unless someone from the industry can show me proof they have all these people on standby now at a cost of about £1Bn per year, who do you think is going to pay these salaries oh and the redundancy section for these people as they will be on a fixed term contract and if I were them it would be absolutely watertight. THE BLOODY CONSUMER THAT’S WHO!
Can I hesitate to suggest – why do you think the cost of electricity and gas is going up now, it’s to pay for all this so they can say it is saving us money when installed, we are actually paying for the meters NOW – Which/What are you there?
PS sorry bit of a rant and ramble.
Dave D
Woke up this morning with a new thought in my head that I feel warrants exploration.
When the credit and debit card system changed to verification by PIN a little known clause was added to the legislation (in response to huge pressure from organisations such as Age UK and some of the IT professional organisations – as far as I know Which? were not involved but I could be wrong) requiring that card issuers continued to issue cards verified by signature if the customer demanded them.
Many banks claim no knowledge of cards verified by PIN and play ignorant until and unless you present them with this clause, at which point they don’t have an option. Thus people who have experienced PIN fraud or who are fearful of it actually do have the right o a non-PIN card. (I have never had a PIN card and never will do because the system is inherently insecure (CITP hat on again), but that is another matter and off topic for here.)
A good starting point for Which? to help to restore some faith to us would be for their legal and legislative experts to scour all the SM proposals and legislation to find out if a similar “opt out” clause exists for SM’s and if it does not them Which? (and other organisations) need to campaign relentlessly for the provision and publication of such an “Opt OUt” clause (I understand that in California, if not the whole IUSA, such a clause exists for SM’s).
It doesn’t matter whether Which? obstinately insist on saying that SM’s are, in their opinion, good or not: we live in an age where we are forever being told we have ‘CHOICE’ – so let’s see Which? making sure that we have a choice with SM’s.
Dave D
On the convo “Is getting a SmartMeter really the Smart thing to do?” (Dec 2010) a member of the Which team, John Holmes, posted the following comment “Smart meters represent a specific problem given the government’s determination to see them installed, regardless of consumers views. Smart meters can, of course, offer some benefit (such as accurate bills) but a roll-out must be carefully managed and work with, not against, consumer interest.” (21/12/10 @ 4:12pm)
I’m particularly interested in the part that says “….regardless of consumers views. ….”
Doesn’t this rather suggest that Which? have known for some time that consumers are against SM’s, which is not what is implied by the opening to this convo in which surprise is indicated?
Patrick Steen
Hi Dave, John pointed out that consumers views may not have been listened to by the government in the first place, so it’s Which?’s job to make sure they are – as he says in his second sentence, the ‘roll-out must be carefully managed and work with consumer interest’. This is what we’re working very hard to do.
Again, the reason we said we were surprised by the response is that all the research and surveys we’ve done of public, consumer opinion has failed to show dislike towards the smart meter roll-out itself. However, what I can say is that – we hear you, so thanks very much to you all for summarising your concerns so succinctly
John H
Which? must listen to anti-technology luddism – but with due regard to history. I am old enough to remember ATM’s being represented as the end of civilisation as we knew it. How many of those who still believe this have difficulty nowadays in avoiding them?
Dave D
I’m not sure about the anti-technology luddism part of John’s comment, but I certainly think that Which? (and John) need to listen to, and respect, people’s genuine fears over data security and remember that all consumers are supposed to have a choice over what they have to use.
As a CITP I’m very pro-technology, but not (I hope) unthinkingly so – technology for technology’s sake is rarely of any benefit to the user but technology to deal with a pre-exisiting requirement is, I believe, always a good thing.
I suspect 9possibly quite wrongly) ythat John is trying to accuse me of nbeing an antni-tyechnolgy luddite, but I woudl like to respectfully ask that if I am correct he goes back and reads all my pro-SmartMeter posts from teh times before it became apparent that actually these Smart Meters are not relly meters at all but complex fuel control devices with precisou little protection from fraudsters and hackers.
If (or when) Smart Meters are refined to be meters and meters alone, and if and when the security issues are adequately addressed I will be pro-Smart Meter again, but until then it would be a very foolhardy person indeed that welcomed one of these devices in their current guise ito their homes.
Additionally, forget the consumer for a minute but refer to First Utility’s post in which they pointed out that at present many of their efforts to use SM’s are frustrated because the current design cannot transmit the data in a great many locations. You can be as pro-Smart Meter as you like, but if the technology won;’t actually do the job (which is the essence of what First Utility have said) then why should we spend £11bn of our money on installing something that won’t work and will have to be replaced (at great cost) in the very near future? That is just not economic sense, regardless of any other issues raised.
John H
Not accusing Dave D of anything but, if the cap fits….
Glad he mentions fraudsters. I worked for a major utility in the 1980s and became aware of how much honest consumers have to pay to make up the loss from those who steal gas and electricity by bypassing meters. Smart meters should alert suppliers to cases that needed investigation and discourage fraudsters.
David Ramsay
@johnh: don’t be daft, smart meters will only tell you of a problem if the total consumed in an area is greater than that reported by the accumulated amount reported by the metering.
Provided I was intelligent about it – making sure my consumption was partly recorded but my heavy use was never going through the meter …
Anyway that isn’t the real point, if I were to hack the metering then I could adjust it to whatever I desired, I could even switch it back on if I was cut off.
It may be aes128 encrypted but there is a flaw in this encryption and it’s use here, I will NOT reveal that flaw but it exists due to certain parts of the specification.
John H
David Ramsay appears to be the exception to the rule that Which? members are rational and polite.
He doesn’t seem to appreciate that the vast majority of power thefts are carried out by permanent or temporary crude (and often dangerous) bypassing of meters. Smart meters could trigger reports on unusal breaks in consumption and prompt targeted inspections to see if properties were unoccupied. This would help all honest consumers.
David Ramsay
@johnh: I am never polite, I am known for my brutally honest position. As for rational, I consider most things carefully but do overstep the mark at times, especially when I feel passionate about a subject.
Now how about answering the real point I was making “where the he’ll were Which when the specification was being written?”
Or am I am being irrational in expecting an honest answer in my brutally forthright way?
I will however thank you for getting my name correct.
Oops, not you it was Patrick Steen I was expecting a reply from. Love a bottle of wine in the evening
Power theft: I do realise the dangers of making a ‘crude’ attempt at bypassing the meter, however, I am an electronics engineer and used to power well above that normally provided via the mains supply and at RADAR frequencies.
If I were to attempt it then it would be safe and visible to anyone I wished to allow entry to my property but since the government has allowed the occupier to protect himself and family I do hope you won’t try to enter my property without my permission, you may not leave in one piece (joking, or am I?)
This is getting too personal and is getting away from topic, I suggest you stop winding me up, I am a scot after all!!
Dave D
As David says, John appears to be winding people up and the result is that we are going off topic. Quite apart from the fact that we don’t really want to get into Libel actions this is detracting from the incredibly serious issues that we face if Smart Metering is introduced in it’s present format and without a great deal of protest from Which? and other representatives of the general public.
It is quite correct that fraud by means of attempted interference with the meters (gas and electricity) is lethally dangerous and cannot be condoned or encouraged. However we do not need to introduce SM’s, at a cost of £11bn (very optimistic), with all the associated drawbacks and dangers that have been discussed at some length just to reduce or discourage fraud.
Quite apart from anything else, as any one with the slightest knowledge of the I.T. side of this can confirm, SM’s will actually make fraud far easier and far more widespread by methods that are logical not physical and therefore rather harder to detect and certainly much safer from the fraudster’s point of view.
John seems to have taken delight in being offensive (to me and perhaps others) and in winding David Ramsey up.
That is not the spirit of this convo and can only detract from the issues at stake. I cannot approve of this. Sorry.
John H
David Ramsay states
” I am never polite, I am known for my brutally honest position. As for rational, I consider most things carefully but do overstep the mark at times, especially when I feel passionate about a subject.
Now how about answering the real point I was making “where the he’ll (sic) were (sic) Which (sic) when the specification was being written?”"
I suspect that the standing of Which? may have damaged to the extent that it was ignored because it has members who are rude and allows them to use its website to boast about it.
The fact of the matter is that gas and electricity are among the most dangerous commodities that go into our house and subject our neighbours to risk. Smart meters could mitigate this by helping to give prompt warnings of unusual changes in consumption. Reduction can mean interference with equipment; increase leakage. This is bound to be a major consideration for the Government and regulators. Failing to give due weight to it in this conversation only helps to discredit the views of consumers.
A response along the lines “If you don’t want suppliers to use technology to monitor power use in the interests of safety, get back to (smokeless) coal and candles” should not be unexpected.
David Ramsay
Ok johnh, I will NOT rise to your recent comment, I just find it amazing.
I assume you are a member of the Which staff – John Holmes, I think.
Perhaps we can keep it impersonal and simple;
1. Where was Which when the spec for the hardware was being drawn up?
2. Do you accept that allowing invisible remote people to switch off supply and to also reconnect without due process and consideration of the equipment in use is something Which should be campaigning against?
3. Why do you think electricity is dangerous when there are so many regulations covering installation and use?
4. How do you propose to protect people who are reliant on a constant supply of electricity at home to keep them alive?
5. How do you propose to ensure that the data compiled from these meters is protected from unauthorised use, where unauthorised means not agreed with the end user who’s data it is?
6. How do you propose that users are protected from system virus infections?
7. Do you intend to campaign to allow an opt out from having such a metering system with no financial or any other impact on the end user where the impact is measured against a person who has such a metering system?
8. How do you propose that the system will remain viable when the system is hacked?
9. Can you justify the cost of 11Bn as currently estimated when every single IT project instigated by the government has at least doubled in cost or been cancelled?
10. What actual benefits will a user actually see from all this apart from that currently spouted regarding the ability to see and control their power usage? AKA will we actually see a reduction to the cost to a level which we would consider reasonable -say 2010 pricing?
Regards
Daver22/David Ramsay
PS I am sorry that the autocorrection from my iPad 2 offends you (sic)
Patrick Steen
Hello everyone (John H, Dave D and David Ramsay) – these comments are starting to get a little personal. Please try and stay civil and talk about the issues themselves rather than each other – read over our Commenting Guidelines if you haven’t already. Thanks.
Dave D
Quite agree Patrick, hence my comment at 8:11 on the 7th Aug (2 above yours) after John’s extremely offensive remark to me at 4:45 on 7th Aug
It’s sad, because John is absolutely right on one point: bickering discredits the arguments. It’s a shame that he is doing it as much as anyone else (as you have correctly identified).
Thanks for intervening and making it clear that Which? are looking out.
Blair Breton
Dear Which?
It seems to me now that we have collected from members many facts which show that as things stand with DECC, and The Government, we should ask (demand?) for a pause in roll out. The balance of the arguments at present is that there are many serious concerns for consumers and for the energy companies that need to be discussed and resolved before any further smart meters are rolled out.
The issues are:
Heath – two aspects – wireless may affect pace makers and remote cutting off of energy is dangerous as some consumers will have medical devices to keep running.
Accidental cut off. All IT systems have bugs and there is a famous law that no software is bug free. Therefore, accidental cut off of the service through the smart meter is possible. Energy companies must be made liable for consequential damage in these circumstances, freezer contents, electronic equiment etc….
Security – Meters are mesh and “hackable”. Good conditions for trojan horses or viruses to operate and spread. Wireless that is unencypted can then be “listened” to without the consumers knowledge. Good Burglar conditions as well as a Privacy issue, see next paragraph
Privacy – consumer information is being sent by wireless or cell phone and kept on unknown servers and may be sold by Energy companies to other users. This data is Private and needs to involve the Data Protection laws etc.. Wireless traffic needs to be encrypted. The consumers wireless connection in most cases cannot be used as many are secured by WEP
Wireless interference and cell phone “black spots”. What happens in these cases?
Type approval of every meter design is needed just like a car, so that it matches the regulations that will be put in place for the issues above. It also needs to be accurate and work in environments from -30C to 130C, and be water proof. Some meters are outside buildings. This winter we got below -21C and a meter box in the sun could reach high temperatures too
In regards to bills there must be a right of appeal to the regulator if after changing to a smart meter bills rise against the historic meter. Consumers should have a absolute right to refuse a smart meter or ask for an unsatisfactory smart meter to be switched back to a dumb meter, at no charge.
The cost of smart meters should be paid by the energy companies, and they should not be allowed to use consumer bills to recover the cost. It is clear that energy companies have many advantages from Smart meters (meter reading, service management) so they should pay. In return for a consumer agreeing to host a smart meter, the energy company pays.
Tariiffs – these need to be controlled by the regulator to ensure that any tariff is a) reasonable b) supporting ecological benefits. Not just silly to make money!
Gas is more important than electric in terms of cost.
My view is this conversation can now be stopped and Which write up a summary to close the conversation, noting the issues and stating what Which? will now do to follow up the members concerns?
The Which? view please?
frugal ways
One point that should be added I think:
An energy company should not be allowed to charge all its customers to recover the amount of energy stolen by a small percentage.
Banks are not allowed to set their charges to recover losses, as proven by the millions in reclaimed charge payouts. Unless the account holder is directly responsible for the losses suffered by the bank, the bank cannot issues charges upon it.
The same should be applicable to energy provision.
David Ramsay
Can we get away from the security and the data protection for a wee while,I feel there are 2 areas that really do need to be addressed;
1. The problem raised earlier by daved on older devices and gas, namely that if the gas is switched off by a remote control then back on again many devices do not have any safety features to prevent this and there is likely to be danger involved. Even modern devices can fail and leave you exposed. Switching off gas by remote control should not form part of the proposal.
2. The problem regarding electricity and those reliant on such electricity to provide lifesaving capability at home, similarly remote switch off should not form part of the proposal.
In both instances I would propose that meters are NOT allowed to incorporate this feature at all.
I would also suggest that this networking will be a hackers paradise, imagine EON hacking British Gas metering and preventing those users getting electricity or gas and then offering guarantee that people switching would have security of supply – hypothetically of course …
Blair Breton
I agree Gas smart meters should not have a capability to cut the supply. Safety.
Phil
Same goes for electricity. The suppliers might, might, agree only to turn power off in the early hours but people still move about at those hours. I certainly wouldn’t want the lights to go out just as I was nearing the top of the stairs and what about granny who might be in her stairlift or needs a hoist to get out of her bath. Will her emergency alarm work if there’s no power?
Remote disconnection should NOT be allowed in any circumstances.
David Ramsay
@patricksteen: you say “John pointed out that consumers views may not have been listened to by the government in the first place, so it’s Which?’s job to make sure they are – as he says in his second sentence, the ‘roll-out must be carefully managed and work with consumer interest’. This is what we’re working very hard to do.”
Where were you when the working party was set up to write the specification I have posted elsewhere? See page 3 it lists 179 participants narry a one from Which!
John H
I am pleased to see an improvement to the tone of a communication from David Ramsay timed at 9:18 7th August and add my responses in double ## after his comments
I assume you are a member of the Which staff – John Holmes, I think.
## Wrong. I have never been John Holmes and have not worked for Which? since 1970. You should make polite requests for information rather than assumptions. ##
Perhaps we can keep it impersonal and simple;
## I shall also keep it polite ##
1. Where was Which when the spec for the hardware was being drawn up?
##You already have my views##
2. Do you accept that allowing invisible remote people to switch off supply and to also reconnect without due process and consideration of the equipment in use is something Which should be campaigning against?
## No. Which? must make polite enquiries of the regulators concerning safeguards before starting any campaign. Because of the difficulty of matching gas supply and demand ( something that BG , despite its faults, manages admirably) gas was (and may still be ) sold on an interruptible basis at a reduced tariff with appropriate due processes in place. To start from an assumption that there would be a lack of safeguards for e-disconnection is an insult to those regulators and suppliers which would discredit Which? ##
3. Why do you think electricity is dangerous when there are so many regulations covering installation and use?
## You force me to state the obvious. It can and does kill ##
4. How do you propose to protect people who are reliant on a constant supply of electricity at home to keep them alive?
## Priority need databasing. Difficult decisions may have to be made in some circumstances and these may not always be correct. Remote disconnection may be appropriate to protect people where, for instance, someone who does not know how to do so manually reports a smell of gas or burning wiring and a need is databased ##
5. How do you propose to ensure that the data compiled from these meters is protected from unauthorised use, where unauthorised means not agreed with the end user who’s data it is?
## Any additional safeguards needed specifically for smart meters should be added to the data protection regime. ##
6. How do you propose that users are protected from system virus infections?
## At a level appropriate to all essential services ##
7. Do you intend to campaign to allow an opt out from having such a metering system with no financial or any other impact on the end user where the impact is measured against a person who has such a metering system?
## I do not intend to campaign at all andwould have severe reservations about an opt out from a system that has safety benefits for users and their neighbours. ##
8. How do you propose that the system will remain viable when the system is hacked?
## With adequate protection. My experience with the computerisation of the Land Registry makes me believe that expressions of concern about hacking into public services can be grossly overstated ##
9. Can you justify the cost of 11Bn as currently estimated when every single IT project instigated by the government has at least doubled in cost or been cancelled?
## I believe that the cost requires heavy scrutiny. You overgeneralise and this does your cause no favours. The computerisation of the Land Registry is a role model for such projects ##
10. What actual benefits will a user actually see from all this apart from that currently spouted regarding the ability to see and control their power usage? AKA will we actually see a reduction to the cost to a level which we would consider reasonable -say 2010 pricing?
## My work with Which? taught me that its members were more articulate and organised than most and, in some cases, failed to appreciate the needs of others less fortunate.
I strongly believe that everyone should be empowered to take part in energy saving and that smart meters will play a useful part in this for the benefit of my grandchildren. ##
Anon
So far as I can see, John H, you appear to have failed to answer every one of the questions posed, in some cases because (you say) you are not Which? staff and so actually neither you nor anyone else except Which? staff is in a position to answer them, in some cases because you clearly have no answer to give (apart, perhaps, from what might be seen as facetious ones) and in the remaining cases because you probably know (if you are completely honest with yourself) that no possible answer can be given except one which points towards Smart Meters being unacceptable, which is clearly not your viewpoint. In this last category of answer I am thinking about the data protection issues that Simon and Dave and others have given a clear and professional view on and for which you have only offered Public Relations non-answers that mean nothing.
Who knows why you have waded in in your heavy handed and offensive way in the last few days but clearly something has upset you. You are entitled to your opinions of course, but so is everyone else, and the fact that you are in what looks like a minority of 1 (excluding Which? delegates) on this topic doesn’t mean that you can offend and ridicule all those holding a different view than yours.
If you had experienced the American Smart Meters you might not be so easy going on this issue. Maybe you could talk to some people who have experience before you make any more cases for the Smart Meter program in the UK?
John H
We increasingly obtain power from abroad. The government cannot guarantee supplies.
Smart meters offer the prospect of fairer energy rationing than blunt instruments such as Ted Heath’s three day week.
The need for energy rationing will always be unpopular but cannot be ignored.
Simon Evans
Obtaining power from abroad may make it more, not less, secure. The government cannot guarantee supplies regardless of where power is produced.
I have been waiting for the dreaded weasel word fair to appear here. “Fair” is meaningless in this context, as it means whatever its user chooses it to mean. Arbitrary disconnection or capping of energy supplies is far less effective than the price mechanism. PG&E in California have had a tiered pricing system in place for years – the more energy you use the more you pay per unit. It is an effective way of curbing demand. (PG&E are also installing smart meters on a wide scale – not without problems, however.)
John H
Thanks Simon for comment
I did not in fact say “fair” but “fairer” and hold no expectations of anything more. This is not, however, any excuse for not trying to use technolgy to improve the impact of mass supply failure or disconnection..
On a practical level I would suggect that Which? promote the idea of a national vulnerability register where those wishing to do so could record the additional impact that interruption of supply would have on them. Those managing the interruption would have a responsibility to have regard to this.
I do, of course, accept that supply has always had a certain uncertainty but the discovery of the “gas weapon” by some exporting states gives it a higher profile.
Dave D
In fact what this boils down to is that John is saying, and this is the PR front that is being presented to us by the DECC, Which? and the energy suppliers, that we need to cut energy use. This in turn comes down to “energy saving” and that is a little off-topic for this convo, but is always being discussed in one or more other Which? convo’s, with the regular conclusion being drawn by the majority of participants that the energy saving schemes devised and implemented so far basically are not working.
Consumers need to reduce energy use and the only way that will happen is for the population in general to be educated to use less fuel.
This won’t happen whilst ever energy is charged at a higher rate for the first few units used and a lower rate thereafter, nor will it happen whilst ever energy saving appliances are being marketed which, in reality when up and running, actually use more energy than their forerunners rather than less (and if any one doubts that this is the case I refer, yet again, to the letter I have in my possession from the Energy Saving Trust in which they specifically state that “All new washing machines and gas boilers will use more energy than older models du to the added features. We simply recommend the most efficient appliances, not these which use least energy”. Whilst my correspondence with the EST was about those two appliances in particular, I have other written testimony from a number of sources with whom I have corresponded to indicate that a similar situation applies to the majority of modern appliances, with flat screen **LED** televisions and modern refrigeration equipment being notable **Exceptions**).
Neither will it happen whilst ever commercial users are allowed to continue being profligate with energy (as one example which I have some degree of professional knowledge of, most IT systems in large businesses are as yet anything but energy efficient or low energy) or whilst public bodies such as the street lighting department of most councils are allowed to continue taking out SOX lamps (**the single most energy efficient source of electrically powered light**) and replace them with SON lamps (because they don’t make things look so yellow).
In this regard Energy Monitors (which I accept can be part of Smart Metering) should be useful devices but with the best will in the world, neither EM’s nor SM’s nor the collective effort of a great many domestic consumers is going to make the scale of difference that is needed.
It is commercial, industrial and corporate users who need to make sea-changes in fuel use to have any measurable effect.
Sorry, I know this has gone off topic, but it is the only way to answer John’s point because energy rationing is not a solution to the problem at all; it is merely a (possibly unavoidable) way to ease the symptoms.
Dave D
Purely for information, I received a response from my own energy supplier this morning. I had asked them if they would please outline their view on Smart Meters and on whether there should be consumer choice as to whether to have them or not.
Here is what they said (I won’t name them as I did not ask their specific consent to use this information on the Which? board, though Idid tell them that I have been active in this).
“Our view on Smart meters is that they will provide some significant benefit to the Energy industry as a whole, whether that results in a change in customer consumption behaviour as the government suggests remains to be seen but in simplest terms it will provide suppliers with regular, accurate meter readings that we can use to ensure that your account is accurate, up to date and subsequently your bills can be produced on time and accurately reflect your consumption.
I understand the concerns that consumers have about data security but the thing that you need to bear in mind is that like any other data held it has to be managed in line with the DPA and the key thing there is that it is Processed for the purpose it was intended and Processed in line with the customer’s rights.
We would expect to receive a reading from any smart meter installed once per month as a basic requirement and that would enable us to bill your account to that reading each month. Outside of that data requirement we might want to provide additional energy management services in the future that allow you to see more information about your own consumption patterns but that would be an additional service and customers might need to request that under a separate agreement so that we can obtain more consumption data on your behalf.
We have no plans for this but I am suggesting that this is what is likely to happen in the future based on industry discussions that I have been involved in.
Our position on Smart is that currently we have not installed any meters. This is because the final meter spec has not yet been released by the government and we are not prepared to invest in metering solutions until we are confident that they will comply with the standard defined.
Once we are confident that the meters we select will meet the standard then we will appoint meter operators to commence our rollout. As this is a government initiative and will form part of the conditions of our supply licence we do not believe that there will be an opt out for consumers as the government have advised that this will be a UK wide initiative and suppliers will need to have completed it by a given future date.
What we can commit is that we will adopt a responsible approach to the use of our customers data that will comply with the requirements of the DPA.”
Simon Evans
If this is all smart meters are going to do then we can breathe easily. If.
Dave D
“IF” being the very powerful operative word!!!!!
Whilst I won’t name my supplier, I will say that it is not one of the “Big 6″ and it is one that boasts extremely ethical standards (and by no means the cheapest tariffs) – I can imagine that my supplier **Might** (another powerful operative word) stick to what is outlined above as that would ride quite easily with their ethics, but I bet the more competitive suppliers would not sit back so willingly.
David Ramsay
@daved: response from energy supplier: seems to me they are hedging bets and will fall into line with the big 6 (if its still6 by then).
Thanks for the level of support you have been supplying btw
Simon Evans
You all may be interested to read the following from the American Engineering and Technology magazine. Feb 2011
US consumers are turning their backs on smart utility meters in one of the country’s most energy-conscious states, California, largely over concerns about privacy and RF emissions from wireless hardware. The protests are even reaching into the heart of Silicon Valley.
Last month, Marin County, a neighbour to San Francisco, and Santa Cruz County, which borders San Jose, both placed one-year moratoria on further installations by the local utility, Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E). Their decisions brought the total number of county stops to 25.
“It’s a way for us to tell PG&E that we want you to stop implementing this until the risks are better known, and it’s a way to tell our citizens that we hear them,” elected Marin County District 3 Supervisor Charles McGlashan told the local press.
Californian opposition is now beginning to go national, embarrassing the Obama administration as it looks to promote national smart meter installations to bolster the sclerotic national grid and reduce US energy consumption.
Washington had originally hoped that California’s reputation as an early-adopter of ‘green’ technologies would make it a convincing pathfinder location for the initiative.
Opposition to the meters is being organised by a loose alliance of civil liberties advocates, groups concerned about health risks and others who claim that the equipment is inaccurate. Several local Tea Party organisations, which often have a strong libertarian philosophy, have joined the fight, but it is getting backing from the left-wing too.
“SmartMeters are really StupidMeters. Why? Because they overcharge you; broadcast your personal info and detailed energy-use habits; emit electromagnetic radiation that can cause cancer, damage your DNA, and harm wildlife; catch fire; and disable your shock prevention devices,” declares the umbrella protest site Stop Smart Meters. It is targeting meetings of supervisory boards in three more California counties this month.
PG&E has installed seven million microwave-based wireless meters in California so far, and published research aimed specifically at countering claims about RF radiation and billing inaccuracies. However, the company’s PR drive suffered a recent own goal with reports that it is developing equipment with more powerful wireless signals – SUNDS, for Subterranean Network Deployment System – to be used in buried city-centre energy infrastructure. Arrests of protesters also appear to have simply given the anti-meter campaigners more publicity and supporters.
PG&E says that it is looking at wired rather than wireless installations, but remains committed to the programme. However, that will not answer growing claims by Tea Party activists that the meters are ‘spying’ on utility customers.
In a recent court case a Californian judge determined that Californians did not have to have smart meters, they could remain with “dumb” meters on request. But there was sting in the tail. The ‘additional’ costs of dumb meters must be borne by the consumer. PG&E has decided that these costs are $270 as a one time charge plus $20 a month for the additional cost of reading the meter. These charges may be subject to challenge, and are clearly unrelated to actual cost.
Dave D
Most interesting – thanks Simon.
Georgina Nelson
Hi Messenger,
I’m the data protection lawyer Nikki mentioned…..and yes, we agree that the current rules for data processing outside the EU aren’t ideal, and there’s quite a bit of confusion as to what standards apply. The communication from the European Commission has acknowledged that this will need to be addressed in the proposed amends to the Data Protection Directive which will be announced later this year – so we’ll be listening with interest!
David Ramsay
Ok I am going to report this series of questions and I am directing the request at Which? And no other individual;
1. Where was Which when the spec for the hardware was being drawn up?
2. Do you accept that allowing invisible remote people to switch off supply and to also reconnect without due process and consideration of the equipment in use is something Which should be campaigning against?
3. Why do you think electricity is dangerous when there are so many regulations covering installation and use?
4. How do you propose to protect people who are reliant on a constant supply of electricity at home to keep them alive?
5. How do you propose to ensure that the data compiled from these meters is protected from unauthorised use, where unauthorised means not agreed with the end user who’s data it is?
6. How do you propose that users are protected from system virus infections?
7. Do you intend to campaign to allow an opt out from having such a metering system with no financial or any other impact on the end user where the impact is measured against a person who has such a metering system?
8. How do you propose that the system will remain viable when the system is hacked?
9. Can you justify the cost of 11Bn as currently estimated when every single IT project instigated by the government has at least doubled in cost or been cancelled?
10. What actual benefits will a user actually see from all this apart from that currently spouted regarding the ability to see and control their power usage? AKA will we actually see a reduction to the cost to a level which we would consider reasonable -say 2010 pricing?
David Ramsay
I actually meant repost – must watch iPad more carefully – note to self!
David Ramsay
Just to add to info anyone else seen this : “Hackers can remotely control a diabetic’s insulin pump and other vital medical equipment, warns security expert”, reported in the news recently.
What makes me think that services under control of smart metering will not be at risk.
Blair Breton
Hi Which? a new thought crossed my mind reading Dave D’s report on an energy supplier’s position.
It’s this:
Currently many people pay by direct debits and the energy company allows a balanced payment each month across the year. In many cases the balance on this account may be in debit for some part of the year. They estimate the bill to support this process. The estimates are not always accurate, particularly in a period when prices are rising steeply.
With the regular reporting from a smart meter, energy companies may remove estimated bills and and move to a monthly bill directly debited from consumers’ accounts, with a variable amount each month. In a long running recession we can expect many consumers to have cash flow pressures and bills skewed to to the winter period may be a challenge. Historically energy company’s’ have billed quarterly in arrears, for credit customers. Smart meters will improve their business model to collect monthly in arrears. This may have serious consequences for consumers cash flow.
Can which take this thought on board please?
David Ramsay
@blairb: very good point this needs taking up with both the industry, the regulators and the EU especiallynthe latter is it is the faceless bureaucrats ther who are forcing the introduction of accurate bills.
Pete Moorey
Hi all,
I wanted to come and clear up some of the issues around what Which? policy is on smart meters, and explain what our process is around deciding policy on these issues.
As Louise said before, and I would like to stress again, we really are listening on this issue and taking your comments on board. However we won’t in the near future be redesigning our policy work based purely on the comments – Which? Conversation is just one of many ways in which we solicit feedback from consumers, but I hope you will appreciate that given the nature of internet debate we cannot formulate policy based on online comments alone. We will continue to take the points that you have raised and evaluate what we are doing to tackle them.
Regarding our campaigning more generally, our ideas on particular topics do change and evolve as different issues arise – some of which are identified by Which? and some which are brought to us by you, the consumers. It’s important that we make sure that our campaigns benefit *all* consumers. We consult with a number of people when deciding what our campaigning focus will be, including Which? members, experts in a particular area, legal experts and members of the public. Although we provide specific targeted services to Which? members (such as the Money helpline) as far as campaigning is concerned, we aim to work on behalf of all UK consumers, ensuring we are independent in our campaigning work.
Which? also maintains its independence as it always has done by not taking money or gifts from anyone in industry or government – we are funded entirely through subscriptions to the products and services that Which? offers.
So please do continue to leave us comments, as long as they are constructive and fall within the commenting guidelines at Which? Conversation. We will keep you updated as and when we do more work on smart meters, and continue to welcome ideas from consumers. However, we won’t be responding in depth on this conversation in the meantime. As I hope you can appreciate, we would prefer to look at the subject as a whole rather than come up with piecemeal responses to your concerns, many of which we have addressed either in the article or in our online guides to smart meters.
http://www.which.co.uk/campaigns/energy-and-environment/smart-meter-campaign/
http://www.which.co.uk/campaigns/energy-and-environment/smart-meters-and-your-data/
Pete Moorey
Energy Campaigns Manager
Dave D
Thanks for this Peter.
I’m going to ask a direct question and if you’d prefer me to ask it of you by direct e-mail or telephone please say and I will:
you say that you consult in many ways, etc. How exactly do Which? members get consulted in general? I only ask because in all the years I have been a Which? member, I don’t recall ever being asked to give an opinion on anything at all other than by volunteering information via these boards or once when I wrote a complaint because a Best Buy was so truly awful.
Have I been missing something?
Pete Moorey
Hi Dave. There are lots of different ways to get involved with Which? research and opinion-gathering. Glad you mentioned Which? Convo as that’s, I suspect, the easiest and most obvious route for both Which? members and non-members.
However, there are lots of other ways to get in touch with us. Which? members can join in via our ‘Connect’ forum – more details here:
http://www.which.co.uk/about-which/what-we-offer/which-connect/
We also post regular calls for stories, experiences, and examples across the website (and in the magazine) when we’re looking into a particular topic. If it’s specifically our campaigning work you’re interested in, keep an eye on the campaigning section:
http://www.which.co.uk/campaigns
We’ll be looking for lots more stories and opinions, particularly on energy issues, over the next few months.
We also often post requests for information/opinions on Twitter (either @WhichAction or @WhichConvo), Facebook, here on Which? Convo and via the magazine. Also, if you’re signed up to any of our mailing lists you’ll be alerted to relevant places where you can come and share your opinion.
There are also a number of email addresses through which people can contact us privately if they want to e.g. which.campaigns@which.co.uk (or by clicking the Get in touch link at the top of Which? Convo).
This is all on top of the surveys, focus groups, interviews and other research that we arrange on a case-by case basis both with Which? members and with wider groups of consumers who aren’t Which? members.
Hope this helps. As I said above, we do welcome consumer opinion on all topics, and although we can’t promise to act on every individual issue that is raised, we do our absolute best to make sure that our campaigning activity is based on thorough research about what will benefit all UK consumers.
Pete
Dave D
Thanks Pete.
I’ll get in touch using one of the links you have signposted to see what else I can be / should have been involved in that so far has eluded me.
akr
I can’t see any benefit in these meters
daver22
Another useful link for a quick read – http://www.eweekeurope.co.uk/news/smart-meters-will-be-‘successfully-hacked’-warn-researchers-8766
brat673
Not needed but where is the guidance how to choose between the cost of hot water from say electricity or oil
David Ramsay
At long last my e-petition has been published, if you feel strongly about this then I urge you all to sign it and to also Tweet, Facebook etc so that it gets as much coverage as possible.
URL – http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/5351
Simon Evans
I seem to have been the first to sign this, and so far, a few hours later, I have been joined by three other people. Please join us. The current proposals for smart meters are deeply flawed, as we all know by now. This petition will be an effective way of getting the authorities to change their tactics.
Graham C.
Sorry if this question has already been covered, but how accurate are smart meters?
I have been using an Eon electricity EnviR meter for almost a year, (one which clips onto the electricity supply), and have found it very useful in helping me reduce electricity consumption. However I have noticed that it consistently over estimates the amount of electricity used, over a period ( e.g. the 30 day period). Would an installed smart meter do the same? How would I know?
Pete Moorey
Hi Graham
The smart meter should be accurate. As with existing meters, there will be a standard of accuracy that they will need to meet.
We think that the display unit (known as the In Home Display or IHD) – which would probably replace the EnviR – should also be as accurate as possible. It will probably give you a running balance but our worry is that it might not take into account any discounts that are applicable to your tariff. We think that the discounts should be part of your unit rate, so that the IHD gives you an accurate balance.
To see more detail on the difference between energy monitors and smart meters, go to: http://www.which.co.uk/environment-and-saving-energy/energy/guides/smart-meters-and-energy-monitors-explained/
Pete
Patrick Steen
Hello all, we have published a new Conversation on this – explaining how the comments you’ve made right here on Which? Conversation have made us review the smart meter roll-out. Thanks!
http://conversation.which.co.uk/energy-home/smart-meters-review-the-roll-out/
Dave D
Sorry to all at Which? but I’ve got to say that I cannot find a single scrap of evidence in the new convo that Patrick refers to, which suggests that Which? have taken the slightest notice of all the concerns on previous convo’s, especially this one.
Possibly the intro to the new one has been written hastily and doesn’t make this clear but ………………….
Patrick Steen
I’m surprised you and the others think that. Let me quote: “So we’ve decided to take stock of what’s happened so far and conduct an investigation into whether the current plans for the roll-out are really up to the job.”
We are conducting an investigation into the roll-out to see what UK consumers and members think about it, not just those who feel strongly about it here. Plus:
“In the next couple of weeks, we will give you more information about how we’re going to conduct this investigation and report back to you on this Conversation. As well as feeding in all the comments and questions you’ve already posted, we’ll find other ways for you to feed in your views.”
So you’ll hear more about this as the investigation continues. Be clear – we have a big list of each of your concerns and we’re dissecting them as we speak. Performing a thorough investigation takes time, so we’re just letting you know that your comments prompted us to do it.
Dave D
Glad I’m not the only one up and active at this time on a Saturday Patrick!
Your reply is helpful in so far as it does give positive hope that Which? really are doing far more than the new condo or other responses suggests.
I’m sure I speak for most or all contributors and Which? embers in saying that I realise that it takes time to, as you say, “take stock”. It may well be that when Which? have done so it publishes statements that show a far greater degree of understanding of our concerns than are shown so far.
However, if you re-read (as I have just done) the intro to the new condo (from which you have quoted to support your view), you will notice that the following points that have caused much concern on this and older convos are very significant by their complete absence:
Issues surrounding hacking into the meters and their networks;
Remote disconnection features (causing most concern when taken as a direct link to the hacking issues);
Health concerns regarding the nature of the wireless data transmission.
I’ve listed those three missing items in what I perceive to be the order of most concern on this condo, but I’m sure if other contributors disagree or things others should be in the list they’ll say so.
Patrick; I don’t know about anyone else, but I’m not contributing to this condo just to try to “have a go” at either you or other Which? staff, but if Which? wants to show those with concerns that it is genuinely taking them on board then it is imperative that it shows that ALL issues raised are at the very least acknowledged. In this case the matters I mention might be missing through careless omission or just through efforts to make the intro brief enough to fit the space available, but on a topic that has raised such high temperatures I think Which? (and anyone else looking at this) needs to be very diligent in making sure that nothing is made to appear disregarded or trivialised.
Gerry
From the Which? website http://www.which.co.uk/campaigns/energy-and-environment/smart-meters-and-your-data/
> “WE’RE ALL FOR SMART METERS – they’ll make taking energy readings much easier, make your bills more accurate, and give you better information about how you’re using energy.”
So despite all its bluster, it’s absolutely clear that Which? is STILL refusing to heed the massive thumbs down from those it claims to represent.
On this issue Which? is certainly no friend of the consumer, it’s just the PR wing of the Big Government / Big Energy complex.
Nikki Whiteman
Hi Gerry,
I’m responsible for the online content on the Which? website around energy campaigns. I take your point on the smart meter copy and will be adding to it when I get in on Monday to point to this conversation and explain that we are reviewing the roll-out. However, generally this copy doesn’t get updated until we are very clear on our position (it’d be confusing if we did!). As we haven’t yet completed the investigation, Which? policy on smart meters remains roughly the same – we have the same feelings about sales during the roll out (we don’t want companies to sell to you when they’re coming round to install) and the things you’ve quoted about smart meters in that copy are factual (they will give you more accurate bills and mean you don’t have to get your meters read, etc).
However, as I say, it is worth mentioning the investigation on that page and I’ll update when I’m back at work on Monday.
Nikki
Michael Lander
Which? is an association, not a private or public company and has a duty to it’s members to represent their views. Personally I am not against smart meters per se but there needs to strictly enforced regulation as to what they are smart about and the limits to which they must comply in data handling.
This seems to be a common theme in most of the comments made. It is duty of Which? to act on those concerns and to date no revision of your position has been posted. Please publish either an amended stance or a complete retraction.
David Ramsay
@Patrick steen: “We are conducting an investigation into the roll-out to see what UK consumers and members think about it, not just those who feel strongly about it here.”
Are you going to publish to members here who feel strongly about it, the briefing / intro to the investigation assuming that it is going to be done verbally or by questionnaire so that we can ensure the position presented and the questions being asked are not biased to either position?
Dave D
Here Here.
I am feeling that we (the convo contributors) are being marginalised in an attempt to “divide and conquer” (especially since a complaint I made about a libellous comment (on this convo) against me has been ignored whilst Which? has edited other comments quickly).
I think a transparent process is most certainly needed to ensure that Which? are not unfairly and inaccurately accused of trying to dismiss our concerns, quite apart from your very good point David.
David Ramsay
I think I may continue to post this link every time I visit a convo to make sure that everyone knows about it, what do you think?
At long last my e-petition has been published, if you feel strongly about this then I urge you all to sign it and to also Tweet, Facebook etc so that it gets as much coverage as possible.
URL – http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/5351
wavechange
That won’t help much. The e-petition closed three days ago.
David Ramsay
@wave change: no it didn’t it’s open till august 2012
wavechange
I’m really sorry about this David. Maybe Patrick will remove my unhelpful comment.
Best of luck with the petition, and I’ll get my eyesight checked.
David Ramsay
@wave change: no probes always good to have a second sight
Gerry
Smart meters will be hackable sooner or later. Even obviously vulnerable devices such as insulin pumps don’t have adequate security, and we can expect smart meters to be built down to the lowest price, not to an uncrackable security standard.
http://forums.theregister.co.uk/forum/1/2011/08/19/insulin_pump_hack/
Why bother to go out rioting when you can plunge everyone into darkness by remote control?
Nikki Whiteman
Hi all,
I thought I should add a longer response to others, particularly those saying that we’re ‘not listening’ to your concerns – I’d encourage you to go back and read Pete’s convo again. This topic possibly more than any other on Convo has given us very real pause for thought. There isn’t space to discuss all the issues in depth on a 600ish word convo, and I think we’d also have worries about being too prescriptive at this stage (i.e. if we comment on outcomes that we think we might have from the investigation, then what is the point of examining it in depth?).
But as an example, Dave D – you say that issues around hacking aren’t mentioned – they are. Pete specifically talks about examining how secure the networks will be, and what provisions there are in place to ensure the security of that data. Now he hasn’t gone into depth about the implications (because he only has 600-odd words!) but the very fact that we are doing this, based mainly on the strength of feeling here, shows that Which? not only listens to Conversation commenters but is willing to act in a situation where we feel we could do more to help.
On top of that, Which? is committed to being thorough, and not leaping in without having the evidence base to back up our actions. That’s why we won’t immediately, as Michael Lander requests, post a complete revision of our position – we want to make sure that whatever we revise it *to* is in the best interests of all consumers. That’s ultimately what we’re trying to work out. And of course we’re extremely pleased that people can come to us with their concerns about this, and that we have the ability to act on it when, as in this case, it is something that people feel very strongly about.
I should sign off by saying that I’m not on the policy team, but I work on our online campaigns (writing web copy, news, running our twitter account, etc) and so I’m mainly concerned with helping to publicise Which? work online, and also feed back ideas and comments from wherever we have a presence online to make sure that Which? is listening to consumers. I was personally delighted with Pete’s Convo, and the decision made to conduct a thorough investigation into the roll-out, because it’s a great example of online work feeding into what happens behind the scenes (something I encourage companies to do much more online). I wouldn’t feel like this if I didn’t feel confident that all of the issues you have raised have been taken on board.
Dave D
@ Nikki.
Many thanks for your detailed / additional info Nikki – it is very helpful and much appreciated (at least for and by me – but I am sure for / by others too).
On the data security point I have re-read the convo intro for Pete’s convo – again – and my understanding is that it only mentions “Another element we will look at is the data that smart meters collect, and what provisions the government has in place for keeping this secure.”.
I am willing and happy to accept that the above quote *could* and indeed certainly *should* indicate the inclusion of hacking, but at my first, second and third reads (with my CITP hat on again) it looks like it’s just an indication that you’ll look into how the legitimately collected data will be stored and used by the energy companies.
We’ve expressed concerns on here many times about hacking not only allowing unauthorised people to read the data but also to disconnect supplies (or ever illegally restore legitimately disconnected supplies) and many other issues around the hacking side of things.
I also fully accept that in a limit of 600 words we cannot expect anyone to make plain every last item that will be included in something as complicated as this issue is. Again I’m grateful for your clarification because I for one never realised that your own staff were limited to 600 words in the intro to a convo and this does make a big difference. Again I quote my colleague: Never assume because it makes an ass out of u and me” – in this case my assumption that your staff could write as much as they like and that what they posted was the extent of what they meant has made an ass out of me more than ‘u’.
May I suggest that this issue has aroused so much anger in so many, not to mention the confusions, heated tempers and misunderstandings, that Which? would be doing a great service to itself and to all of us who have been following this by issuing a very detailed ‘press release’ (for want of a better phrase) elsewhere on your web site, in which you detail explicitly all the issues that you are now going to look into at length so that I and others can see everything in full and hopefully avoid any further misunderstandings and frayed tempers. (Such an article might be what Patrick referred to earlier today – but please make it detailed and not word-limited for reasons already stated.)
Finally, slightly off topic, but can I ask: are the Convo’s open to the general public or just Which? members? I have never thought about this before but earlier today in a post from Patrick I read: “We are conducting an investigation into the roll-out to see what UK consumers and members think about it, not just those who feel strongly about it here. “. It may well be another assumption making and ass out of me, but before reading Patrick’s comment I had always assumed that these convo’s were only open to Which? members. If this is not the case then I’d like to suggest that Which? considers a detailed survey of members (open to all members) with very open answers permitted, to see just how large the strength of feeling **and understanding** amongst members is?
Thanks again Nikki – you’ve been very helpful.
wavechange
Dave – I don’t remember registering to use this forum and I am using a different email address from that relevant to my Which? membership. (That isn’t deliberate and I will change the latter soon.)
For a while I assumed that the purpose of Which? Conversations is to raise the profile of the organisation and to encourage participants to take out a subscription, but there is no sign of the latter. I now suspect that it is a way of gathering information and advice from people that are genuinely interested in consumer affairs.
This is seriously off-topic, but I feel sure that many of us are interested in the role of this discussion forum.
Patrick Steen
Hi guys, just to answer this quickly (hope you’re all having a great weekend) Which? Conversation is for everyone. You don’t have to subscribe, nor do you have to be a member. It’s for all consumers to have their say and let Which? know what they think so these views can be fed into our researching and campaigning. Hope that answers your question =)
Dave D
@ wavechange & @Patrick: thanks for your answers to my question about convo. Most helpful.
b.martin
tNew meters.
It appears to me that the conversations on new meters has drifted from the basic subject into all sorts of side issues and it is time to return to the fundamental details.
People should realise that a form of the new meters are going to take place.
The first step should be to prohibit the installation of the new meters until a national standard is established. The meters should only be provided and fitted by the regional distribution company as part of their network equipment. The meters as at present should only record the running total of energy consumed as accurately, or better, as the present electro-mechanical meters with a perment display of energy consumed. The meters should have a standard internal electronic signal output which connect to an internal plug in standard transmitting module,all being part of the distribution company installation.The transmitting module should be hard wired to transmit a meter reading only to the distribution company ‘head ofice’ once a month i.e.12 times a year, this would enable monthly or quartly billing to take place in accordance with the individual consumers contract. The onus would be on the distribution company to relay the readings to whoever the consumer is paying so that the appropriate bill can be presented. The new meters sould result in an accurate and up to date reading on the recorded date. There will inevitably be some cases where errors will occur but these will be able to be corrected within one or two weeks even if it means a face to face meeting between a company representive and the consumer.
The new meters should have no switching capability. If at some later date the control freaks succeed in introducing such a feature it should be by means of a sparate device.
The question regarding hacking into the radio transmission will always exist, the human race has not and never will, on present evidence, produce a perfect solution to any situation.
It would be nice to have an official comment on the above fundamental proposals from Which.
Gerry
You’d have to specify that it should only transmit the total amount of peak and off-peak energy used in the last month, otherwise it would still be the Spy Under The Stairs, just sending much the same minute by minute usage information but as as a monthly file rather than in real time.
Without such a safeguard, most of the privacy and rip-off tariff objections would still remain.
JohnH
Remote disconnection is not just something devised by control freaks.
It could have significant safety benefits where, for example, escaping gas is smelt from an unidentified source in a block of flats.
Dave D
@JohnH – it [remote disconnection] could also have huge safety disadvantages where, for example, hackers, unscrupulous rival energy companies or legitimate suppliers making an error disconnect gas incorrectly, the unsuspecting (or unaware) householder had an appliance on (e.g. the oven) and when the supply is restored the gas escapes, unlit, into the home.
Please don’t reply stating that flame failure devices will cut the gas off: for several million budget or older cookers and gas fires there will be no flame failure device, and these are likely to be owned by the most vulnerable in society so yet again the most vulnerable are likely to be most at risk – in this case of death.
It would be better to have manual disconnection by emergency services in the scenario that JohnH hypothesises than remote and incorrect disconnection in the great many cases relevant to the scenario I have outlined, and which have happened in some countries where SM’s are already installed.
Gerry
@JohnH
> “Remote disconnection is not just something devised by control freaks.
“It could have significant safety benefits where, for example, escaping gas is smelt from an unidentified source in a block of flats.”
WRONG ! The standard advice when investigating a gas leak is NOT to operate any electrical switches, either on or off. The spark could ignite the escaping gas.