Smart meter roll-out - Energy and Climate Change Contents

7  Consumer concerns and engagement

Public attitudes to smart metering

92. Many witnesses agreed that public acceptance of smart metering is crucial to its success.[216] Smart meters are not mandatory, and if large numbers of consumers do not want to receive them, roll-out will be hindered and costs are likely to increase as suppliers struggle to gain access to people's homes and have to invest more in trying to persuade them to have smart meters. Currently, about half of British consumers have heard of smart meters, and enthusiasm for receiving one is mixed.[217] Stuart Rolland said that British Gas had found that "probably fewer than half of customers contacted to make an appointment to put a smart meter in their home actually will say yes".[218] Paul Spence described how lack of interest and logistical difficulties had affected EDF's success rates in getting consumers involved with the Low Carbon London trial:

    Our experience when we have tried a geographically focused trial...[is that] it is more difficult than we expected to reach consumers in the first place. There are a lot of those consumers, when we do reach them, who are just genuinely not interested in wanting a smart meter. Even when they do, convenience for the appointment means that we do not fulfil or their building means we can't fulfil. All of those are things that we need to learn as we go through and to do it we would suggest will take some real scale co-ordinated trialling.[219]

93. There was wide agreement among witnesses that consumers need to be sufficiently engaged with smart technology to maximise the benefits they could gain from it.[220] Potential barriers to realising those benefits include apathy, distrust, lack of knowledge about energy consumption and concerns about cost.[221] Consumer Focus found that people were interested in using smart meters to save money, budget more effectively and control their energy consumption, and that they thought "accurate bills, access to detailed data so they could get the best deal, and having a reliable energy supply were important smart benefits".[222] The same research found that customers were worried about the cost of roll-out, the effect that smart meters might have on energy costs and whether smart meters were really worth the hassle or cost.[223] Tony House described the importance that SSE places on consumer acceptance of smart meters:

    I think the success for the smart metering programme overall is around consumer acceptance of smart metering. The supplier owns that relationship with the customer and we will do our utmost to make sure that that is a very positive experience…We have a once in a lifetime opportunity to have a face-to-face touch-point with each consumer and be able to use that opportunity to best effect and to really sell the benefits of smart metering.[224]

94. The vast majority of written evidence we received from members of the public and interest groups flagged up concerns about health, data protection and privacy, but many other witnesses agreed that public concern about these issues was generally low.[225]

Potential for consumer concerns to affect roll-out

95. The evidence from roll-out programmes in other countries shows that concerns about data protection, privacy and health can cause a consumer backlash against roll-out.[226] Consumer Focus noted that "very few public concerns" had been voiced about smart meter data or health in the UK as yet, but added that "the potential for these to become issues that jeopardise consumer engagement and result in customer detriment should not be under-estimated."[227] During our visit to California, we heard directly from utility companies Pacific Gas & Electricity (PG&E) and the Sacramento Municipal Utilities District (SMUD) about the effect that consumer concerns about smart meters, particularly in relation to health and privacy, had had on roll-out. There had been pockets of resistance across California, and in some areas opposition had been so strong that local politicians had considered banning further smart meter installations.[228] In Santa Cruz county, for example, the local board of supervisors put in place a moratorium on smart meter installations in response to local concerns about potential health issues.[229]

96. PG&E described how local people in one town had suggested that meter installers should be arrested if they attempted to install smart meters, and how in another town police had accompanied meter installers to prevent interference with installations.[230] Another way in which consumers had affected roll-out was by repeatedly not being at home when installers came to install smart meters.[231] SMUD told us how it had stopped its roll-out and rethought its approach when it had heard about PG&E's problems. It had then embarked on a large consumer engagement campaign, telling people about smart meters and getting local politicians and others involved, before recommencing roll-out. This approach had helped it to avoid running into many of the problems experienced by PG&E.[232]

Consumer concerns


97. A substantial amount of the evidence we received from members of the public focused on health. Concerns were raised about the potential harmful effects on health of the electromagnetic fields (EMFs) or radio frequencies (RFs) emitted by smart meters.[233] Some witnesses stated that they were adversely affected by EMFs or RFs and outlined symptoms they had experienced such as headaches, fatigue, dizziness, nausea, sleep disturbance, fevers and heart palpitations.[234] Some said that they suffered from electrosensitivity, or particular sensitivity to EMFs/RFs.[235] Others did not outline personal experience of such symptoms but raised concerns about the potential for exposure to EMFs/RFs to cause cancer, infertility, DNA damage or other negative health effects.[236] Stop Smart Meters (UK) said:

    There are thousands of studies that are showing biological effects at levels well below the ICNIRP [International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection] safety levels and evidence that harm from the radiation could be acute. Studies have shown links with headaches, insomnia, anxiety, depression, memory and concentration problems, arrhythmias, things like that. Then there are chronic effects from long-term exposure such as cancer, infertility, dementia, genetic damage, immune system dysfunction and damage to foetuses. We are aware of many respected organisations that are calling for a precautionary approach regarding exposure to this sort of radiation, particularly for children. So we are very concerned that the proposed smart meter roll-out is with wireless technology rather than wired technology.[237]

98. However, we heard convincing evidence from Public Health England (PHE)—formerly the Health Protection Agency—and the IET's Biological Effects Policy Advisory Group (BEPAG) that the balance of evidence to date suggests that current guidelines regarding low-level exposure to radio waves are correct and that smart meter exposures fall well within these guidelines.[238] Dr Jill Meara of PHE told us:

    From what we know about smart meters already, those used in the UK in a small way and elsewhere, the radio wave exposures from smart meters are small in relation to a lot of other radiofrequency applications and very small in relation to the guideline levels. In particular, the exposures to members of the public are likely to be thousands of times lower than those they would get from using a mobile phone.[239]

Dr John Swanson of BEPAG explained that there were systems in place to ensure the public were protected and that the scientific evidence was kept under review:

    The Institution and myself completely recognise that there is some scientific evidence relating to health effects and that scientific evidence mandates further research, keeping a very close eye on any scientific developments and having in place a system to ensure the correct protection of the public. That system is in place through authoritative international and national review bodies that review the science and then bodies...which set exposure limits. The technologies that will be used in smart meters will comply with those exposure limits by...a remarkably large margin...We need a system to protect the public, and in the shape of the exposure guidelines we do have such a system. Any residual concerns should not be sufficient to halt the roll-out of the smart meter programme.[240]

99. Dr Swanson went on to outline the careful and methodical process behind the EMF/RF exposure guidelines, which involved weighing up all the evidence regarding the potential health effects of such exposures.[241] We were not convinced that the science relied on by Stop Smart Meters (UK) and other witnesses who raised concerns about the potential health effects of smart meters was similarly rigorous. For example, many witnesses relied on the BioInitiative Report, which Dr Swanson told us was "out of line with what one could call the mainstream view or the international consensus".[242] He also suggested that its authors had not performed a "dispassionate weight of evidence approach" in reaching their conclusions.[243] Many witnesses also cited as a cause for concern the fact that the International Agency for Research on Cancer of the World Health Organisation (IARC) had classified radiofrequencies as a possible group 2B human carcinogen. However, Dr Meara assured us that this did not mean that current RF guidelines on safe exposure levels needed to be reclassified.[244] She said:

    That is by far from the strongest classification. There is also probable and certain carcinogen. Among the probable carcinogens is shift working. Among certain carcinogens are alcoholic drinks. Besides radio waves, other agents with this 2B classification are petrol car exhaust, surgical implants and coffee.


100. Data access and privacy have been major consumer issues for roll-out programmes in other countries.[245] In the Netherlands, for example, they "played a key part in the consumer backlash against smart metering".[246] The evidence we received suggests that levels of public concern about data protection and privacy in the UK are currently low.[247] For example, expert witnesses and energy suppliers told us that few consumers taking part in trials had raised concerns about privacy data or security.[248] Professor Bulkeley said that only 2% of those taking part in the Customer-Led Network Revolution trials had opted out of allowing their trial data to be shared on privacy grounds.[249] However, she also noted that this could have been partly because those involved in the trial had "a good deal of trust in that side of things", and suggested that attitudes might be different if consumers did not have that level of trust.[250]


101. In California, the consumer backlash against smart meters was ultimately brought under control by allowing people to opt out of having a smart meter and by improving communications with customers.[251] For most of these customers, SMUD had simply disabled the transmission facility in the smart meter and operated it in dumb mode, although for a small minority who were not satisfied with this solution it agreed to replace their smart meters with analogue meters.[252] Both PG&E and SMUD had put consumers who did not want smart meters on to a 'delay list', and many of these had ended up accepting smart meters at the end of the programme—some because they had seen them in use and no longer had concerns and others when they realised that there would be charges for opting out.[253] Opt-out charges are discussed below.


102. In the Netherlands, consumer concerns about health were partly addressed by giving consumers control over whether smart meter communications systems in the home were on or off. Consumer Focus has suggested that a similar approach could be adopted here.[254] Audrey Gallacher said:

    We know that in some countries, for example, you can control whether the meter is transmitting. You can switch the home area network off at night, for example, in the Netherlands...The other point is what you tell people and how people are reassured.[255]

DECC said that it was "working with consumer groups, suppliers, the HPA and Department of Health to ensure that clear and easily understood information on the evidence relating to smart meters and health is available to all consumers", and that it was considering further "how best to respond" to such concerns.[256]

Data protection and privacy

103. DECC has said that "an expectation has been set at EU level that all countries should seek to address" data protection and privacy issues. It went on to outline that it was "undertaking 'privacy by design', meaning that privacy issues are considered and embedded in the programme from an early stage."[257] Consumer Focus said that DECC had "been proactive in taking steps to address customer concerns around privacy while also seeking to promote competition and the potential for wider benefits that data access can deliver" and "should be praised on...[its] collaborative approach to this sensitive issue".[258]

104. We welcome the action that DECC is taking to respond to public concerns about health, data protection and other issues in relation to smart meters. We also welcome the fact that it is considering further "how best to respond" to such issues.[259] We urge DECC to take into account solutions that have worked in other countries and to outline, before the commencement of mass roll-out, what further action it will take to address consumer concerns. DECC must ensure that these issues are given sufficient and timely attention in consumer engagement campaigns before and during roll-out.

Opt-out and charging

105. During our visit to California, we heard that consumers who opt out of having a smart meter pay extra charges to cover the cost to the company of reading their meter manually. PG&E outlined how the Californian regulator—the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC)—had set opt-out charges at a one-off charge of $75 and a monthly charge of $10.[260] DECC has said that UK consumers will not be obliged to have a smart meter, so they will be able to opt out, but it is unclear whether they might be charged for this.[261] When we asked suppliers whether they would charge consumers for opting out, SSE, EDF and RWE npower said that they first needed more clarity from DECC and Ofgem on what was expected of them in terms of encouraging consumers to accept smart meters.[262] Tony House said:

    We have a mandated obligation to demonstrate that we have taken all reasonable steps to encourage customers to take smart meters. We are keen to have that determined so that we all know where the bar is, effectively. Once we know that, we can then start to address those concerns and try to work through and maybe adjust the approach through the initiatives that we might have ourselves, and particularly through the Central Delivery Body, to try to break down some of the barriers that hopefully the minority might push forward.[263]

Don Leiper of E.ON agreed that it would be useful to have clarification on the definition of reasonableness, and added that the "$10 a month or something like that, as well as a one-off charge" in America "does not seem disproportionate" to the cost of meter reading.[264] Dr Pennington of RWE npower said:

    We would like good understanding of what all reasonable endeavours means, because if you have a refuser you have called 14, 15 times that is not a great customer experience.[265]

106. We asked DECC and Ofgem to clarify what was meant by the obligation on suppliers to "take all reasonable steps" to install smart meters in all homes. Baroness Verma said:

    Again, it is about being able to ensure that those people who want to have a smart meter get a smart meter...We have kept it reasonably flexible to be able to ensure that all suppliers are working towards 100% coverage. It is in the interests of suppliers. Ultimately it reduces their costs, so they would see it as a benefit to try and get 100% coverage in the end."[266]

Ofgem said that the "all reasonable steps" caveat had been included in the supplier obligation to recognise that "there may be instances where installation is impossible" and that suppliers were generally "best placed to decide how to manage their own rollouts". It went on:

    Although, Ofgem can issue guidance to suppliers as to what might constitute all reasonable steps we do not consider it appropriate to do so at this early stage. This is because the difficulties that suppliers may face when installing meters and the solutions they may deploy to mitigate these difficulties are not yet understood. Guidance without this information could be misplaced, resulting in lower incentives on suppliers to find best-fit solutions for difficult installations and, consequently, a worse outcome for consumers. We will, however, keep this under review as the rollout progresses...With regards to customers who wish to opt out of having a smart meter, the Government has stated that it does not expect suppliers to take legal action to fit one if they cannot get the householder's co-operation.[267]

107. We also asked DECC and Ofgem whether consumers could be charged for opting out of having a smart meter. Maxine Frerk of Ofgem said that this should not happen before the end of roll-out, but that there were "real costs to suppliers of maintaining two systems, so it may well be that in future we would say it was reasonable for suppliers to charge".[268] Baroness Verma said that it was a matter for suppliers to decide.[269] When pressed on whether the charge would be regulated, Maxine Frerk replied: We have a competitive market. We don't regulate prices."[270] Baroness Verma also referred to the competitive market, adding that if consumers felt they were being treated unfairly, they would have recourse through Ofgem.[271]

108. We note Ofgem's reasons for not wanting to give detailed guidance at this stage regarding the obligation on suppliers to install smart meters in all homes, and we agree that it is important that suppliers should aim to install smart meters in as many homes as possible. However, we also believe that suppliers would benefit from having a clearer understanding of what is expected of them in cases where customers refuse a smart meter so that they can plan how to respond. We therefore recommend that DECC and Ofgem should provide some guidance in this regard.

109. We agree with Ofgem that it may be reasonable, once roll-out is complete, to charge consumers who opt out of having a smart meter. This would help to protect other consumers from picking up the increased costs of reading "dumb" meters, but any such charge would have to be reasonable. We do not believe it would be appropriate to impose a similar charge on consumers who are prevented from receiving a smart meter by HAN or WAN communications issues. Ofgem and DECC should provide guidance on the circumstances in which it may be appropriate to charge consumers for opting out of having a smart meter. If charging does occur, Ofgem should monitor the charges and be prepared to set a cap if charges appear to be excessive.

Consumer engagement

110. The overriding message that we took away from our discussions with utilities in California was that good consumer engagement was crucial to a smooth roll-out. PG&E, SMUD and the California Energy Commission (CEC) all highlighted the importance of ensuring that consumers were fully informed about roll-out well in advance, and suggested using a variety of messengers, including local politicians and groups, company customer relations staff and community groups.[272] SMUD in particular had found its consumer engagement strategy crucial to building consumer understanding and acceptance of smart meters before and during roll-out.[273] Many witnesses also outlined the need for good consumer engagement before mass roll-out.[274] Audrey Gallacher highlighted the need to begin consumer engagement at the right time:

    There is a worry that if we are not proactive in telling consumers about smart meters and the benefits and, indeed, the risks, we will leave a vacuum that is not necessarily going to be helpful.[275]

111. As outlined in the previous chapter, the quality of information and support provided to consumers when smart meters are installed and subsequently are crucial to achieving consumer benefit and savings from smart meters. EDF survey data from smart meter trials showed that customers would have valued more engagement and instruction during installation of their smart meter and in-home display (IHD).[276] Several witnesses agreed that the provision of energy advice and technical information upon installation would help consumers to benefit from smart meters.[277] DECC said that "the installation visit offers an important opportunity to provide consumers with advice on how to use their smart meter and IHD to improve their energy efficiency."[278] Jacqui Russell outlined the information and advice that installers would have to provide during the installation visit under the Smart Metering Installation Code of Practice (SMICoP):

    [The SMICoP] specifies...that they must demonstrate the smart metering system and the IHD to the customers, so they actually get to see it work. They must provide them with energy efficient advice, and that has to include pointing people towards independent advice from people other than their own supplier. It has to include giving generic information about schemes like the Green Deal...We hope the Central Delivery Body will come along and make some of that real.[279]

112. The provision of good-quality information and support regarding smart meter usage and energy efficiency will be crucial to consumer benefit from smart meter roll-out. We applaud the action that DECC and Ofgem have taken to ensure that consumers receive information and advice about smart meters and energy efficiency when their smart meter is installed. However, we are concerned that the benefits of receiving this information may be lost, or significantly reduced, if smart meters are installed in areas where communication gaps mean that they will be operated in "dumb" mode for some time after installation. DECC should amend the Smart Metering Installation Code of Practice to ensure that consumers whose smart meters do not have smart functionality at the point of installation receive appropriate information and advice when this functionality is enabled.

The consumer engagement strategy and the Central Delivery Body

113. DECC has produced a consumer engagement strategy "in close consultation with stakeholders" to "direct work to raise levels of consumer awareness and support for smart metering as well as to enable energy saving-behaviour change." [280] It has identified the strategic aims of the strategy as:

  • building consumer support for the roll-out by building confidence in benefits and by providing reassurance on areas of consumer concern;
  • delivering cost-effective energy savings by helping all consumers to use smart metering to better manage their energy consumption and expenditure; and
  • ensuring that vulnerable and low-income consumers can benefit from the roll-out.

DECC has also outlined how the strategy will be implemented:

    Suppliers will have the primary consumer engagement role as the main interface with their customers before, during and after installation. Supplier engagement will be supported by a programme of centralised engagement undertaken by a Central Delivery Body (CDB). The CDB will be funded by larger energy suppliers, with smaller suppliers contributing to fixed operating costs. Larger suppliers will be required to set up the CDB by June 2013 and will be accountable for ensuring that it delivers its objectives (which broadly align with the aims of the Consumer Engagement Strategy). The body will have an independent Chair and consumer groups will be represented on the board of directors.[281]

Baroness Margaret McDonagh was recently appointed as the CDB's chairman, and the organisation formally came into existence on 30th June 2013.[282]

114. Several witnesses have highlighted the fact that lack of consumer trust in suppliers may be a barrier to roll-out.[283] This is one reason why some witnesses are concerned about the fact that the CDB is supplier-funded and led.[284] Audrey Gallacher said that the energy industry was "characterised by a lack of trust".[285] The FSB suggested that "careful consideration" needed to be given to the CDB's governance and structure "to ensure its independence from energy suppliers in order to give small businesses confidence in its role".[286] Don Leiper said that E.ON supported the CDB but also thought it should be as independent as possible:

    We have always been very supportive of the CDB being in place. I think it is really important that it is as independent as it can be from the industry and that it gets its information from further independent parties as well so it can be out in the press and the media confirming the benefits of smart metering, debunking myths and engaging with real issues where there are real issues to be engaged with.[287]

115. During our visit to California, SMUD and the California Energy Commission (CEC) highlighted the importance of using local messengers and forums in consumer engagement strategies.[288] Many witnesses agreed that the involvement of charities, local authorities and other trusted third parties in the consumer engagement programme would be an important means of building trust before and during UK roll-out.[289] Dr Raw said that messages needed "to come from multiple sources...from everyone involved. It needs to be trusted public figures who have been brought in, who are entirely independent."[290] Baroness Verma said:

    It is a huge task for suppliers to be able to build up that trust, but with the steps that we are taking in consumer engagement, whereby we have suppliers and other stakeholders, such as third party trusts like charities, all coming together through the Central Delivery Body, we anticipate that we will be able to start breaking down some of the barrier creep over the last few years, in as much as the consumer does not, by and large, trust suppliers.[291]

116. Policy Exchange suggested that the consumer engagement programme should be linked to roll-out:

    Wherever possible, the communications strategy should be co-ordinated with energy companies so that it reflects where the roll-out is taking place. This means working on a city-by-city or regional basis where possible (without compromising the operational efficiencies that suppliers can deliver).[292]

Stuart Rolland said that the setting up of the CDB had been "a little late in the day" and that British Gas was "very keen to see it very active as soon as possible."[293] The FSB highlighted the need for small businesses to receive information and advice about smart meters, and suggested that the Central Delivery Body (CDB) "should be specifically tasked with engaging the micro-business sector."[294]

117. Public engagement should begin before the start of mass roll-out. We hope that energy suppliers will learn from the US experience of roll-out and start engagement early. We welcome the setting up of the CDB and suggest that changes to the timescale for mass roll-out present a welcome opportunity to ensure that the consumer engagement programme is well under way before mass roll-out commences.

118. Energy companies still have a long way to go in putting right past failures and building trust among consumers. It is therefore essential that information and support from a range of messengers, including charities, local authorities and other trusted third parties, is available to consumers before, during and after roll-out.

216   Q 69 [Audrey Gallacher]; Qq 60 and 76 [Allen Creedy]; Q 78 [Hans Kristiansen]; Q 163 [Dave Openshaw and Dr Raw]; Q 227 [Tony House]; Ev 65; Ev 71; Ev w75; Ev w115; Ev 99; Ev 110; Ev 121; Ev 146; Ev w127; Ev 150  Back

217   Ev 74; Ev 93; Ev 126; Q 242 [Paul Spence]; Q 273 [Stuart Rolland] Back

218   Q 273 Back

219   Q 242 Back

220   Q 69 [Audrey Gallacher]; Qq 60 and 76 [Allen Creedy]; Q 78 [Hans Kristiansen]; Q 163 [Dave Openshaw and Dr Raw]; Ev 65; Ev 99; Ev 121; Ev 146; Ev w127  Back

221   Ev 65; Ev 99; Ev 126; Ev w127  Back

222   Ev 126  Back

223   Ev 126 Back

224   Q 227 Back

225   Ev 74; Ev 93; Ev w118; Ev 99; Ev 110; Ev 126; Qq 148-57 [Professor Bulkeley and Dr Raw]; Q 276 [Stuart Rolland, Darren Braham and Don Leiper] Back

226   Ev 93; Ev w5; See also PG&E and SMUD visit summary notes in Annex 1.  Back

227   Ev 126 Back

228   See PG&E and SMUD visit summary notes in Annex 1. Back

229   "Over union objection, Santa Cruz County extends SmartMeter moratorium", Santa Cruz Sentinel online, 24 January 2012,; "Meter Moratorium Continues", Good Times online, 31 January 2012, Back

230   See PG&E visit summary note in Annex 1 Back

231   See PG&E visit summary note in Annex 1 Back

232   See SMUD visit summary note in Annex 1 Back

233   Public Health England uses the term EMF to cover fields in the frequency range below 300 gigahertz (GHz). It says that electromagnetic fields include "static fields such as the Earth's magnetic field and fields from electrostatic charges, electric and magnetic fields from the electricity supply at power frequencies (50 Hz in the UK), and radio waves from TV, radio and mobile phones, radar and satellite communications." Electromagnetic Fields, Public Health England, 19 July 2013, Back

234   Ev w7; Ev w26; Ev w41; Ev w46; Ev w51; Ev w51; Ev w59; Ev w77; Ev w77; Ev w77; Ev w81; Ev w82; Ev w84; Ev w88..  Back

235   Ev w7; Ev w27; Ev w51; Ev w67; Ev w68; Ev w77; Ev w77; Ev w81; Ev w84; Ev w88; Ev w91; Ev w110 Back

236   Ev w8; Ev w10; Ev w11; Ev w14; Ev w16; Ev w17;Ev w25; Ev w32; Ev w41; Ev w50; Ev w52; Ev w54;Ev w55; Ev w59; Ev w64; Ev w66; Ev w68; Ev w69;Ev w75; Ev w81; Ev w83; Ev w84; Ev w90; Ev w91; Ev w91; Ev w96; Ev w97; Ev w113; Ev w115; Ev w117 Back

237   Q 1 [Dr Liz Evans] Back

238   Q 2 Back

239   Q 2 Back

240   Q 2 Back

241   Q 17 Back

242   Q 27 Back

243   Q 27 Back

244   Qq 25-26 Back

245   Ev 93; Ev w5. See also the summary note of the meeting with representatives of the California Senate Committee on Utilities and Commerce in Annex 1. Back

246   Ev 93  Back

247   Ev 93; Ev 126; Qq 148-57 [Professor Bulkeley and Dr Raw]; Q 276 [Stuart Rolland, Darren Braham and Don Leiper] Back

248   Qq 148-58 [Professor Bulkeley and Dr Raw]; Q 276 [Stuart Rolland, Darren Braham and Don Leiper] Back

249   Qq 157-58 Back

250   Qq 157-58 Back

251   See California Energy Commission, PG&E, SMUD and Senator working lunch visit summary notes in Annex 1. Back

252   See SMUD visit summary note in Annex 1. Back

253   See PG&E and SMUD visit summary notes in Annex 1. Back

254   Ev 126 Back

255   Q 68 Back

256   Ev 93 Back

257   Ev 93 Back

258   Ev 126 Back

259   Ev 93 Back

260   See PG&E visit summary note in Annex 1. Back

261   Smart meters: a guide, DECC website, 19 July 2013, Back

262   Q 243 [Tony House]; Q 245 [Paul Spence]; Q 246 [Dr Pennington] Back

263   Q 243 Back

264   Qq 277-78 Back

265   Q 246 Back

266   Q 415 Back

267   Ev 79 Back

268   Qq 314-15 Back

269   Q 413 Back

270   Q 316 Back

271   Qq 413-14 Back

272   See California Energy Commission, PG&E and SMUD visit summary notes in Annex 1. Back

273   See SMUD visit summary note in Annex 1. Back

274   Q 68 [Audrey Gallacher and Allen Creedy]; Q 238 [Tony House, Andrew Ward, Dr Pennington and Paul Spence]; Qq 262 and 272 [Stuart Rolland and Don Leiper]; Q 335 [Baroness Verma]; Ev 65; Ev 71; Ev w27; Ev w47; Ev w75; Ev 87; Ev 93; Ev 99; Ev w118; Ev 106; Ev 110; Ev 121; Ev 126; Ev w127; Ev 150  Back

275   Q 68 Back

276   Energy Demand Research Project: Final Analysis, Aecom and Ofgem, June 2011, Executive Summary, p. 4, Back

277   Ev 71; Ev 110; Ev 146  Back

278   Ev 93 Back

279   Q 393 Back

280   Ev 93 Back

281   Ev 93 Back

282   Baroness McDonagh appointed Chairman of Central Delivery Body, Energy UK, 19 June 2013,  Back

283   Q 57 [Audrey Gallacher]; Q 288; Q 339 [Baroness Verma]; Ev 99; Ev w118; Ev 126; Ev 146  Back

284   Ev 146; Q 272 [Don Leiper] Back

285   Q 57 Back

286   Ev 146 Back

287   Q 272 Back

288   See California Energy Commission, PG&E and SMUD visit summary notes in Annex 1. Back

289   Ev 71; Ev w27; Ev 89; Ev 93; Ev 99; Ev w118; Ev 106; Ev 121; Ev 126; Ev w127; Qq 159-60 [Dr Raw]; Q 160 [Professor Bulkeley]; Q 238 [Dr Pennington]; Q 339 [Baroness Verma] Back

290   Q 159 [Dr Raw] Back

291   Q 339 Back

292   Ev w127 Back

293   Q 272 Back

294   Ev 146 Back

previous page contents next page

© Parliamentary copyright 2013
Prepared 27 July 2013