3. The AI game is Enron mark 2, passing money in circles, booking it repeatedly and praying that trump bails them out, as already seems to be happening with oracle. Fortunately we are blessed with expensive electricity which is acting rather well as a parasite repellant. Plus thanks to Trump there's no longer enough helium to run the chip fabs indefinitely either.

Not many people consume overnight, so as a principle it is a safe bet… 

For how long do you think that will be the case?

1: The electricity generation mix at night is different. There's no solar, but there's considerably more from gas-turbine plants.
Because NESO have been given the remit to decarbonise the grid, they will want to reduce CCGT-sourced electricity to zero.
That will raise prices, making overnight tariff slots less attractive.

2. Charging an EV will typically take double the kWh of the household demand.
As EV ownership increases, overnight supply becomes a problem.
Hinkley-C and Sizewell aren't large enough to plug the hole.

3: Data Centres are expected to require as much electricity as GB, and they work right through the night.
NESO report that data centre demand connections are around 50GW.

The days of cheap-rate overnight are coming to an end.

Probably the reason Octopus does not bother if Go users have an EV. 

I do wonder, though, whether we can make any safe assumptions about what results are or are not "intended by design" in the context of these tariffs. You mention about Go being marketed for EV users and that Octopus are choosing not to worry about people without EVs adopting the tariff, but I'd argue Octopus are probably well aware enough about this as to include non-EV users in their actual tariff design. I might, of course, be wrong.

What I was keen to say before - and it bears repeating - is that any criticisms I have of third parties controlling my kit are criticisms specific to me and my setup. If an intelligent tariff works for you, you should make use of it, which, of course, you are doing. The only cautionary note I would want to sound is that decisions like that should be made with eyes wide open precisely because of the difficulty in judging how equitable the arrangement is.

Agreed - there's a place for everything from "Dunno, I rent a box and my bill is lower" to "I'm in control send me pricing hints".

The problem with "intelligent" tariffs that involve a user element is that there are a lot of users and they will systematically game any tariff. Even tariffs which are "we give you a plug in box, magic happens and you get some off your bill" are going to get gamed.

The more people game a tariff the more complicated the rules get, the less people can understand it and thus the more "normal" people move off it. The IOG slow charging game is just a taster of where this tends to end up in systems (the UK tax system being the finest example globally of where you end up). We've already now got people smart charging in the day and switching over to granny charging at night. Likewise the Octopus "can switch tariff" stuff led as far as a home assistant module that just before midnight worked out the best tariff from the days Octopus Mini data and switched (because the switch covered the day you switched too).

People will go to a lot of trouble to automate scraping pounds off their bill, and for some it's really about the game not whether it's worth it, but they then share the trick with everyone else.

Very much so, @etchedpixels, but I'd also add a couple of points.

Firstly, that "gaming" of a tariff doesn't just apply to customers; it can apply to the provider too, hence my point about the need for an element of trust. We've seen with companies like Aira and Homely an attitude of "you don't need to know what's going on underneath; just leave the fancy stuff to us" when dealing with heat pumps, leading to suspicion of them marking their own homework. No reason to think a typical energy provider would think any differently, and it's only the open and freely available data from Octopus that allows us to do at least some of the homework-marking ourselves.

Secondly, "gaming the system" is a very emotive term that implies misuse. However, by "playing the game" with the Octopus Agile tariff, I'm not only saving money I'm also interacting with the tariff in exactly the way Octopus want, so "gaming" the tariff is actually a good thing for both parties. That obviously doesn't mean that all ways of programmatically interacting with the energy supplier are necessarily desirable but let's not make too many assumptions about what's "right" or "wrong" (not to suggest you are making those assumptions, btw).

Agreed - there's a place for everything from "Dunno, I rent a box and my bill is lower" to "I'm in control send me pricing hints".

The problem with "intelligent" tariffs that involve a user element is that there are a lot of users and they will systematically game any tariff. Even tariffs which are "we give you a plug in box, magic happens and you get some off your bill" are going to get gamed.

The more people game a tariff the more complicated the rules get, the less people can understand it and thus the more "normal" people move off it. The IOG slow charging game is just a taster of where this tends to end up in systems (the UK tax system being the finest example globally of where you end up). We've already now got people smart charging in the day and switching over to granny charging at night. Likewise the Octopus "can switch tariff" stuff led as far as a home assistant module that just before midnight worked out the best tariff from the days Octopus Mini data and switched (because the switch covered the day you switched too).

People will go to a lot of trouble to automate scraping pounds off their bill, and for some it's really about the game not whether it's worth it, but they then share the trick with everyone else.

There is a degree of nuance to the calculation. Remember that you are using a PW3 that has a unique unlimited cycle warranty in the marketplace. If I were using one of the other “smart” batteries, where the warranty is limited to 5-6k cycles I would be thinking twice about how I used my battery. As it happens I, semi-intentionally, flog mine to death  (I cycle 3x in 24 hrs) knowing that it is almost certain to require warranty replacement before 10 years.

the supplier can receive extra payments for grid balancing (or whatever), and the consumer because the supplier shares some of that financial benefit in exchange for use of the equipment.

As a consumer, we have no way of knowing how much (more) the supplier is making, and whether the split is fair.

I think it is possible to assess whether the Suppliers and consumers are each getting a fair share.

Certain payments originate from NESO, rather than the TNOs and DNOs. These include:

• balancing services
• reactive power support
• system inertia support

Balancing Services already has an entry-point on the NESO Data Portal.

NESO is the Independent System Operator (under the terms of the 2023 Energy Act). They are committed to transparency, and should be able to provide data on request.

It dismays me to see members of the public issuing FoI Requests to NESO. That shouldn't be necessary. Transparency includes such non-confidential information by default.

If we can't find something on their Data Portal, then email the generic 'customer address'. You receive a Reference Number, and the staff will forward your requests to the relevant department.

If we think something isn't presented well on the Data Portal, then email the Data Products Team.

What I was keen to say before - and it bears repeating - is that any criticisms I have of third parties controlling my kit are criticisms specific to me and my setup. If an intelligent tariff works for you, you should make use of it, which, of course, you are doing. The only cautionary note I would want to sound is that decisions like that should be made with eyes wide open precisely because of the difficulty in judging how equitable the arrangement is.