The effectiveness of consultations
Back in February, I gave a brief history of metering innovation in the UK which ended by saying that the regulator, Ofgem, was conducting a consultation on how the next generation of metering technology could be encouraged. The Environmental Change Institute submitted a response in which we shared our views and research experience.
The results of the consultatoin were released at the end of June and identified three areas where Ofgem can make a contribution:
- Developing common standards for smart meters
- Removing any remaining regulatory barriers
- Taking a leading role in the DTI’s pilot on smart metering and consumer behaviour
These are all sensible proposals and hopefully they will promote the growth of innovative metering technologies. On a personal note, it’s very rewarding to see that the Environmental Institute was cited regarding the importance of visual monitoring displays. We tried to stress that smart meters alone will be insufficient if consumers are to play a greater role in managing their domestic energy consumption. Instead an entire system of technologies and policies must be created to provide consumers with information on their energy consumption and its impact on the environment.
Therefore, while it sounds as though our comments were largely taken on board, I think it’s worth re-iterating this line from our original submission: “Ofgem needs to be aware that unless the supporting institutional frameworks are correct, the results [of a metering pilot] may be disappointing”. Perhaps it should read “DTI needs to be aware…”, as they are funding the pilot and setting its terms of reference. In any case, the main message is that consultations are ultimately judged on how effectively the government is able to transform the received responses into a solution to the perceived problem. This cannot be achieved by considering one element of a complex system in isolation and (fingers crossed) Ofgem will adopt a multi-faceted approach in relation to smart metering.
‘Sham’ energy review
The Observer has discovered that AEA, a firm with interests in nuclear energy, played a large role in collating and sorting through the submissions to the recent energy review. The Environmental Change Institute submitted a thorough review and it took us several weeks to gather evidence and compose a response to the proposals so it would be disappointing to think that any bias was introduced to the review by external consultants with vested interests.
As Bob Everett from the Open University noted:
”There’s a great gulf between what’s in the review and what’s in the submissions… when I think of all the people who sent in submissions, I think they’ll be very, very angry, but not surprised.”
Couldn’t have said it better myself.
The Fundy Circuit
