So far the government has been deaf to calls for it to be scrapped, but this week it revealed it has been listening. Energy suppliers are to be allowed to run trials of IHD alternatives during the rollout to collect data for proper analysis. At the same time the government is strengthening license conditions to ensure the offer of an IHD is sacrosanct.
Both supporters and naysayers have welcomed the proposals, albeit for different reasons. Those against IDH say it is finally opening the door to a much needed discussion, while those for say it closes the door on discussion that has been dragging on too long.
A vocal critic of the in-home display is the Institute of Directors. In March it released a report damning the rollout as a potential IT disaster. Although the report recommends, amongst other ideas, scrapping the whole rollout in favour of a simple smart phone app, IDHs were singled out as holding progress back.
The IoD views the policy change announced this week as largely positive, saying “if this is way of retreating from an over specified form of technology which frankly is now a bit out of date, then so be it.” The IoD’s senior infrastructure advisor Dan Lewis told Utility Week that he sees it as the “first step in right direction,” although thinks the government could have gone further.
Lewis says the IHD is old technology, conceived back in 2006 “in a different world”, before the time of smartphones and tablets. Companies specialising in data analytics, presented to customers in the simple form of smart phone apps, have developed in the intervening years. Lewis says if the tests finally allow these companies into the market, albeit for a limited trial period “that’s a good thing. It’s ridiculous that they got crowded out in the first place to be honest.”
And Lewis says they can do it better, cheaper, against the backdrop of a rollout with spiralling costs. IHD supporters, such as electronic infrastructure trade body BEAMA argues that the cost of the IHD is minimal, and far outweighed by the benefits. But Lewis says this argument is based on a range of assumptions, such as the realistic lifespan of the hardware or the ability to be multi-supplier compatible.
“They think the in-home display is going to last 15 years. I don’t know any electronic kit that lasts 15 years, that’s just ridiculous. This is really an added layer of complexity that comes with a cost and is anti-competitive.”
But BEAMA argues that suppliers should stop seeing the IHD as a “barrier” and instead see it as an “opportunity”. Far from being superseded by them, it views the IHD as an integral step in the development of these future services and products that will help suppliers diversify. But in what it does, which is present customers with real time energy consumption data, BEAMA says “for accessibility, inclusiveness, effectiveness and economy the IHD has no peer.”
It says that “there is simply no way to provide real time energy data to a household in an omnipresent form for less than the cost of a mandate-compliant physical IHD (at Impact Assessment price or cheaper).”
BEAMA views the proposals as a “put up or shut up” consultation that should end “ridiculous” continued debate on IHDs, and allow the important work of ensuring the rollout progresses smoothly to be focused on. There are after all, many more critical hurdles yet to be resolved.
“If anyone has evidence that the IHD mandate is damaging or endangering the smart metering rollout, or that consumer access to real time data is unimportant, now is the time to say so. After this, let’s move on to the real issues.”
While it supports the Government’s commitment to promoting additional research and innovation in energy management products and services, such as that the trials will enable, it has particularly focused on the government’s strengthened commitment to the IHD in the rollout.
It welcomes the “reassertion” that the IHD is a critical part of the rollout, saying the mandate is supported by “strong evidence.”
“ shows that the best savings from alternative forms of feedback occur when used in conjunction with the IHD, not as a replacement for it.”
But Decc gave a lack of data on the use of IHD alternatives as the reasoning behind allowing trials, and why it was closing the loophole to ensure “unproven” methods of feedback do not undermine the rollout while such data is collected.
Which side the trial results support will unfortunately not be known until at least 2017, as long as Decc doesn’t ‘plan’ for any more delays, but once the results are known, all sides will hope it provides a conclusive way forward.