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
HEALTH
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.
DATA PROTECTION AND PRIVACY
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]
RESPONDING TO CONSUMERS' CONCERNS
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.
Health
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, http://www.santacruzsentinel.com; "Meter Moratorium
Continues", Good Times online, 31 January 2012, http://www.gtweekly.com/index.php/santa-cruz-news 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, http://www.hpa.org.uk/Topics/Radiation/ 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, https://www.gov.uk/smart-meters 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, http://www.ofgem.gov.uk/Sustainability/EDRP/Documents1 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, http://www.energy-uk.org.uk/press-releases
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
| 
