[meldrewreborn]

Originally Posted by geoffers

@retrotecchie, I think you've got that the wrong way around - if you read the thread I posted from OVO it would appear that the use of EAC is where people don't have smart meters, so they look back at the historical periodic meter readings and build a picture of energy usage over time. But I guess there's always an element of doubt as they're relying on user supplied reading which may or may not be correct (only to be validated by a knock on the door when a human reader comes)

However they say with smart meters they're getting a regular, confirmed and true record of your ½ hourly (or daily) usage so can build a much more accurate picture for your FAC to base your predicted usage on

I don’t imagine that the EAC computation cares where its source data originates. The methodology used is baked in - a bit like computer systems parodied in “Little Britain”. Comments that smart meters help to bring the EAC to a “correct level” more quickly, may be true, but only marginally because of the frequency of data submission. My own experience of EAC following a substantial cut in my consumption level 27 months ago is that it still hasn’t reached a “correct level” -it’s still 10% too high, admittedly only using manual readings. Now my EAC is higher than it was those 27 months ago and it’s likely to take around 30 months to achieve a proper level. I’d love to be wrong, and will readily admit that should it happen, but I’m confident in my prediction.

As I’ve said before, my EAC also went 4 months a while back without changing on my monthly bills, and nobody ever explained that. And while I’m adept are arguing for fair treatment from suppliers , many others just accept the words of the companies, mainly to their detriment. And meter replacements continue apace.

EDIT. The EAC system is huge and central to how different parts of the electricity system functions including payments between generators and retail suppliers. That’s its prime purpose. There isn’t a major stakeholder representing consumers involved, and the regulator is pretty useless and ineffective, so I am realistic enough to to realise that it’s not going to change unless that change is imposed from above. But as retail suppliers have their own data from their relationship with their customers, I see no reason why they should use data from a suspect industry system in preference to their own verified data when dealing with customers.

[retrotecchie]

@geoffers

For the last three years, I've been submitting my monthly meter reads accurately and on time every month. My EAC (not to be confused with FAC as that's rather different) started off at around double my consumption. That I totally understand because prior to me occupying the property, the previous owners used significantly more 'leccy as they had electric hot water and heating.

Over time, the EAC reduced every few months and for the last year has been tracking at about 10% over my AAC. But as I have VDD and pay for what I use every month, it's entirely irrelevant as they don't have to calculate what a monthly Fixed DD should be.

I believe our esteemed colleague @meldrewreborn was in exactly the same boat. Regular readings, no smart meters and an EAC tracking slightly higher than his actual. Now he has new smart meters, his EAC has more than doubled.

So I stand by my comment. Variable DD removes the issue entirely, but having a smart meter installed exacerbates it. Yes, in time once the meters have been sending regular readings and the calculations have driven the EAC downwards over time, the 'guestimate' will be closer to the reality.

But its the hike in EAC following a meter change that will trigger the supplier recalculating the DD, which we have seen so many times. @meldrewreborn is a very savvy fella and has the data at his disposal to counter any DD hikes and to present the supplier with a convincing argument to leave things as they are. But customer intervention should not be necessary in any way if the EAC calculations worked as they are supposed to.

But how many punters simply accept the hikes, end up in serious credit and then have to claw the money back after the event?