WWT ROUND TABLE 2009
Sponsored by
“Smart metering would
improve. What you are suggesting is giving society. The individual may not care about
them some targets and metrics about what 20p, but he may care if he can catch
give a greater insight into
they might be able to do. Other places in salmon in the Thames. We need to think
the world that have metering in play can at more creatively about that whole value
how a service is being least give guidance and, in drought proposition.
delivered”
situations, they can decide where to put
penalties in for people who are ignoring it Bob Baty This brings us back to the
because the price of water is not a question we are discussing: how can water
is two and a half times the price. That is significant amount to them – they may be companies deliver a sustainable water
perhaps some indication that there are paying more for their internet bill, for strategy that engages customers? We are
some quite big jumps that would be example, than for their water. talking about one mechanism of engaging
needed, to make the pricing signals work. customers, by making it obvious to them
Our view, therefore, is that we need to Tony Conway Smart metering works in two what they are paying for it, with the meter as
move towards compulsory metering but ways. The more information you put on the an option. However, as Stephen quite rightly
that we need to do it with some sort of bill enables water companies to provide says, there is a broader picture there.
social tariff to protect the customers who are targeted advice as to how customers can The ultimate situation, of course, is that, if
least well off. We think this can be done. improve their situation. I also think that the there is not sufficient to go around, what is
There is an existing cross-subsidy and, as smart metering capability would give the cost of that, and how is that built into
that erodes through the switch to metering, companies a far greater insight as to how the equation overall? The ultimate disaster
you want to keep a little bit of it and focus it that service is being delivered, and how it scenario is that there is insufficient to go
very tightly on those who are least able to could change our operations to optimise it. around and the costs associated with that
pay, so that the poorest 1% of customers That would be in everybody’s interests. would be significantly higher than the 20p
would have a 50% discount on their meter here and there that John referred to.
bill, with the next 4% having a 25% Stephen Bird You are talking about the Could we think a little more about the
discount. That would sort out some of the better price signals that you can send on the broader picture; about how to deliver a
worst cases. If we did that, then we could bills and this comes back to one of the sustainable water strategy? How do we
more easily come towards a metered points Ian made earlier about the effect on actually engage customers with that part of
solution. summer low flows and so on. You should it? And what are the mechanisms to bring
Once you have people on meters, you not just be communicating the idea that that home to them? How do we educate
then have opportunities to communicate they will save 20p by using less water, but customers, to get them into that debate? At
with them in different ways and we can be that they will raise the Q95 on the river by X, present, most customers are focused on the
much smarter about what we put on bills. I which will mean certain populations of question of “How much do I pay for it and
don’t know about other companies but, as organisms will thrive. In other words, this what do I get?”
far as Thames is concerned, we still bill comes back to communicating the full
people on cubic metres of water used, value. The common denominator every Ian Barker There have been two
which is crazy when all the public discussion time here seems to be price; is it 20p, or announcements in the last 10 days or so
is about litres. People are more likely to 2%, or 3%? You can go back to saying what that are quite pertinent to this discussion.
think in pints and gallons, instead of cubic that means in the round for value as a One was about moving the energy industry
metres of water.
However, we could come to a system
where, on the water bill, there is a little table
for your postcode, with two, three or four
people in the house, giving the average
water use as against your own. You could be
above or below, and we could use a traffic
light system – there is a great deal we could
do to inform consumers. The price
difference might be small, but there is a
great deal around water which is just a
matter of good housekeeping and not
wasting it. If people saw where this tonne a
week, or 900 gallons or whatever it was,
was going, that would help to move things
forward.
Dan McCarthy It would seem to me that
the behaviour issue that we started out with
earlier today would need to be coupled with
metering. People need to be able to
measure what they are doing; they need to
know where they are, and how they can Ian Barker: An announcement about moving the energy industry to smart metering
June 2009 Round Table 17