Energy: rationing on the way

By Richard North - February 9, 2022

I did enjoy Marina Hyde’s view of the odious Johnson “rebooting” his Downing Street operation. She “loves” the idea that this full-scale meltdown can somehow be rebooted. It is, she writes: “Like standing in the ruins of the reactor building at Chernobyl and going, ‘Have you tried switching it off and on again?'”

There are those of us, of course, who would be happy to see the first stage – the switching off bit. It would be nice to think that there was an “emergency stop” button that we would hit on the wall outside No 10 and bring the entire operation to a halt. But, if that button is there, no one has found it yet…

Meanwhile, as the world goes on, some of the plans of mice and men laid many years ago are beginning to come to fruition without the aid of the posturing Oaf, all to do with the concept known as demand side management (DSM). This is to be a key component in the management of the nation’s electricity supply, and the next steps are being unveiled.

Ironically, it is the Oaf’s fanboy gazette which gives the game away with an article headed: “National Grid scheme to ration households’ power use at peak times”.

This is the essence of DSM. Instead of boosting supply to meet increased demand, the emphasis of the industry changes to one where demand is managed as well. And when there is insufficient generation – as might be the case if we increase our reliance on wind – demand is cut to meet the supply available.

At the moment, such schemes apply to industry, where large users can sign up to contracts which allow their providers to interrupt their supplies when demand is higher than can be easily met. In some cases, when supplies can be cut at very short notice, the users are paid for not using electricity (mainly at times when they actually want to use it).

But now the next stage of DSM is upon us, with up to 1.4 million families being recruited to join a pilot scheme where they volunteer to take part in a gigantic DSM experiment. Power will be rationed during times of peak consumption, for which they will receive payment.

Ostensibly, this is a good idea – as long as it remains voluntary. Electricity demand is notoriously variable, doubling or more over the period of a weekday, and it makes good sense to take measures to even out the peaks and troughs. If done skilfully in a conventional system, it could save the cost of having to build and run several power stations.

The problem we have with current plans though is that the motivation behind the scheme is not one of smoothing out fluctuations, but one of managing shortages – an attempt to keep the system running when the wind drops and not enough electricity is being generated.

And, for such a system to work, there can be no voluntary element to it. It must become compulsory, with system managers able to limit power usage, on a selective basis, in individual homes.

For this, an essential component of the system is the so-called “smart meter”. This has been sold on the basis that it allows users to monitor their own power usage, and for the supplier to sill customers without having to send out readers to take physical meter readings.

For the moment, all the technology needed is not yet in place for a fully comprehensive DSM system, so the next step, as illustrated here is to develop a penal pricing system.

This relies on giving suppliers legal powers to reach into people’s homes and automatically read their smart meters every 30 minutes. They will then use the data to change prices as much as 48 times per day, allowing them to charge more at peak times.

The plans, we are told, are viewed by industry experts as a key stepping stone towards “time of use” tariffs, which would charge customers different rates for energy throughout the day depending on demand, thereby meshing with the rationing system.

However, the basis of “time of use” tariffs is to redistribute prices though the day with consumers’ bills – in theory – averaging out the same over a period. This, in itself, might not give sufficient control and thereby fail to cut demand sufficiently, especially when faced with large drops in supply caused by the periodic collapses in wind generation.

Thus, “time of use” tariffs can only be an interim measure, the final system requiring disconnection or physical limits on supplies to be imposed on users – the limits varying according to the power available and changing from hour to hour.

Some of this might be achieved by fitting homes with multiple meters. There are, for instance, already proposals for the separate metering of car charging stations – a facility which might also allow a special tax rate for electricity used for transport purposes. Heat pumps (where fitted) and other high-use appliances might also be metered separately, to allow them to be remotely shut down when supplies are tight.

The final development might come when key domestic appliances are fitted with the own “smart” controls which can be interrogated by the electricity suppliers via smart meters, and switched off (or not allowed to start) during periods of high demand.

Wealthier customers will, or course, be able to compensate for these interruptions in supply, either using power from their electric vehicles to top up their mains supplies, or by buying battery packs (with inverters) to keep appliances running.

Nevertheless, consumer rights groups are warning that people with poorly insulated homes, old-fashioned appliances or health conditions that require round-the-clock support may lose out without safeguards.

As for the increasing numbers of “merely broke”, they are already catered-for, paying higher tariffs via pre-payment meters. When they run out of money and can no longer feed their ravening meters, these customers are said to “self-disconnect”, saving the utility companies the hassle of having to cut them off.

All these developments are being carried out in the name of “net zero”, where simply electrifying heating, cooking and transport will not be enough. There is not the slightest chance of a “net zero” electricity industry consistently supplying enough power to meet demand.

Some form of rationing is an essential part of the system, with managed reductions (hopefully) instead of rolling brownouts and blackouts. A fully developed DSM system, though, does not rule out selective brownouts, with high-risk and essential users (such as hospitals) being left connected.

For the time being, the hold-outs who are currently refusing to have smart meters fitted will escape all these provisions. Doubtless, fitting will either be made compulsory or penal tariffs will be imposed.

Unsurprisingly, the move towards “net zero” is beginning to attract political resistance (it has taken long enough), with the Guardian lamenting that “climate” is being dragged into a new “culture war”, calling in aid Michael Mann (he of the fraudulent “hockey stick”) to complain about a “dangerous new tactic being used by those opposed to addressing the ecological emergency”.

The truth is though that climate change zealots are bumping up against reality. In the real world, people are beginning to understand that the hikes in energy costs are largely due to climate change measures, while there is resistance to idea of spending a small fortune on electric cars.

Interestingly, the move to heat pumps seems to have stalled and there is absolutely no chance – at the current rate of progress – of meeting government targets.

What people need top appreciate, though, is that climate change zealotry is fundamentally changing the relationship between electricity suppliers and users. We are no longer “customers” whose needs must be met, and are in the process of being transformed into consumption units who must be “managed”.

With suppliers having sold their souls to greenery, they are no longer our friends – if they ever were. They are certainly not to be trusted.