Posted by: @sheriff-fatman

↑

This only really applies if the end user is someone who was 'gaming' the smart charging aspect to get cheap electricity for more than 6 hours per day, which has always been within the terms of use for Intelligent Octopus Go.  The essentials of the tariff are still there.

Agreed although reducing cheap hours from 7 to 6 is a bit of a disadvantage.  For me the switch to banning combining it with a decent export tariff, which has only just been introduced is the bigger killer.  They currently offer 13p if you dont have a ToU tarrif, or 6.5 if you do.  Thats a significant shift.

Posted by: @editor

↑

What’s different with heat pumps is that they’re not discretionary tech. You can choose whether to buy an EV or a battery; heating is non-optional. So tying affordable heating to experimental tariffs, hardware lock-in or remote control feels much more problematic. Heat Pump Plus looked like a way to avoid that (simple, transparent, no control games) which is why its withdrawal feels so significant. It’s not just about one tariff ending, it’s about what replaces it and whether we’re comfortable building the economics of home heating on ever-shifting incentives rather than stable market design.

I dont disagree, although I still maintain that the 15p flat rate was fairly obviously unsustainable.  I think surrendering some control is likely to be the way forward, which will make the argument for batteries stronger.  In the end we need to strongly incentivise grid load levelling if we are not to suffer upgrade costs which are probably unaffordable.   

Posted by: @jamespa

↑

The best Octopus tarrifs seem to involve giving them control, ultimately we will have to surrender at least some control if we want to benefit.  The question is how much and how much will the tech cost us.  An EV charger, required for Intelligent GO unless you e EV itself is compatible (mine isnt) is 1K, the min battery (required for several other tarrifs) appears to be ~2.5K.   

The Octopus tariff for ev may be happy enough to theoretically control the car. But then we have free ev charging at work, not sure how it works with that... 

Octopus seems to be continuously adding more tech which (no matter how good) takes some time to adjust to. Unless they are not pushy, which they aren't 😉

I am hoping solis ai will be doing the work (just tick a "max profit" option). But I still do not have export capability.. 

Likewise! I only switched to Ovo 2 months ago specifically for their heat pump tariff. Back to Octopus I guess and time to give some serious consideration to adding batteries to my setup. 

@editor - it's possible that OVO are withdrawing their HP Tariff for technical reasons rather than it being unprofitable for them.

OVO's own Kaluza division built their own in-house billing system called Orion.

It's a rival to Kracken (designed in house by Octopus).

When I was an OVO customer, several years ago, there were teething problems with Orion producing incorrect bills for customers with Smart Meters.
Billing is a core requirement of the licence terms issued by Ofgem.

Whilst a few bugs were obviously getting fixed, others remained stubbornly persistent.

Several members of the OVO Forum were posting their bills online for others to read, and patterns were emerging.
A private section of the Forum was set up in which others with relevant skills could analyse the maths and directly communicate with programmers at Kaluza.

However, the Orion software designers were moving on to other work (and other companies) partway through resolving issues.
Then senior management squashed the problem by ruling that customer bills mustn't be posted on the open part of the Forum.
That meant the data-stream dried up, and analysis became more difficult.

A few issues could easily be fixed.

For example, Smart Meters were being asked to send back the day's consumption too soon after midnight.
If the electricity and gas meter tariff times hadn't yet moved across to the next period, then the final (48th) half-hour reading for the day wasn't yet in the Comms Hub.

The following day there might be a slight delay in DCC sending out the SMETS "Send Usage Record" command, which meant there
might be 49 readings which were ready for collection.

Consequently Orion would insert an estimated reading for the day for which only 47 readings were retrieved,
and make a complete mess of handling 49 readings for the following day.

In some cases where consumption was very different from one day to the next, Orion attempted to replace the estimated reading from Day-1
by subtracting the 'error total' from day-2.

But if the Day-2 'error' was higher than the estimate, that would result in a memory register being asked to hold a number less than zero.
A negative number is actually described by 'rolling around' to the highest possible positive number which the register could hold...
... leaving perplexed customers receiving monthly bills for thousands of pounds!

Other Orion issues were deeper.

The code was being built on a foundation which had incorrect concepts embedded in it.

Those foundational problems prevented the software team from being able to create a mechanism which could offer ToU tariffs.
Fortuitously, I was able to speak directly to Stephen Fitzpatrick, Founder and CEO of OVO Group.

He listened, understood, issued instructions for Kaluza staff, and gave them a deadline for me to be the first ever customer on a ToU tariff.
The months went by, programmers moved on, and I eventually switched to a different energy supplier.

If those false concepts are still underlying the Orion billing system, then I don't see how they could properly manage a HP Tariff.

I cannot think Greg needs to be so accessible at octopus..  he just gets people motivated to do the right thing.. they listen to clients that try to help and act on it.. 

The other day I called OVO. Very nice conversation about export. Chap said he would do it all, send an email straight away, etc. it would deserve top feedback! 

Then complete silence... No call, no nothing.. 

And I will not mention names, but I know some senior folk associated with the group.  I thought they were rich enough even before they got involved to not keep trying the same old tricks.. 

Was ohme not a spinoff from these guys? 

Posted by: @jamespa

↑

Agreed although reducing cheap hours from 7 to 6 is a bit of a disadvantage.  For me the switch to banning combining it with a decent export tariff, which has only just been introduced is the bigger killer.  They currently offer 13p if you dont have a ToU tarrif, or 6.5 if you do.  Thats a significant shift.

I've not heard anything about this, as yet.  I get the 15p export rate currently, and haven't heard anything about this changing, albeit perhaps that was lost in all the noise around the other changes.

@sheriff-fatman Octopus have 2 different feed in tariffs, called Octopus Outgoing.

if you’re with them as a supplier it’s 15p, if not it’s 4.1p (strange value to pick)

Theres no limit on amount you can export, but they state you can’t use your own nuclear generator, Gregg has a dry sense of humour 🙂

Posted by: @sheriff-fatman

↑

Posted by: @jamespa

↑

Agreed although reducing cheap hours from 7 to 6 is a bit of a disadvantage.  For me the switch to banning combining it with a decent export tariff, which has only just been introduced is the bigger killer.  They currently offer 13p if you dont have a ToU tarrif, or 6.5 if you do.  Thats a significant shift.

I've not heard anything about this, as yet.  I get the 15p export rate currently, and haven't heard anything about this changing, albeit perhaps that was lost in all the noise around the other changes.

 

The Next export tarrif was fixed for 12 months so until your renewal you may well not hear (and by then it may have changed).  Here is what it currently says

@jamespa Sorry, I think we're at crossed purposes here.  I'm was referring to the Octopus rates, and the recent announcement regarding Intelligent Go, and it looks like you were referring to E.ON Next with regard to the export rates.

For clarity, I'm not aware of any changes being made to Outgoing Octopus export rates, which are currently 15p.  They switched this from a fixed tariff to a variable one 12 months ago, so there's always the possibility that the rate will change, but there has been no notification in this regard to date.

Edit:  I can see how this has happened now, looking at the quote I replied to initially

Posted by: @jamespa

↑

Tariffs are definitely closing in, EON has made their EV Tarrif significantly less attractive and also withdrawn the enhanced export tariff if you have a ToU import tariff (I wonder if they were getting arbitrage).  The best Octopus tarrifs seem to involve giving them control, ultimately we will have to surrender at least some control if we want to benefit.  

Looks like I mis-read the bit referring to EON and replied to it from an Octopus user perspective, probably from looking at the line below.

My bad, apologies.

@transparent, that's very interesting. I'll have a look into Orion.

On the subject of OVO, I was alerted on a YouTube comment about OVO’s finances that really caught me off guard. I wanted to share it here and see what you all think, because it feels like a pretty significant loophole that affects all of us as customers.

I’ve just learned that OVO Energy, the company we pay our bills to, has been paying tens of millions of pounds every year in licensing fees. That’s not unusual for a big brand, but here’s the catch: the money is paid to another company called OVO Group Ltd for the right to use the “OVO” name and for so-called “management services.” The thing is, both OVO Energy and OVO Group Ltd are ultimately owned by the same person, Stephen Fitzpatrick.

The most striking figure I found was for 2022, when OVO Energy paid £40 million in these fees. To put that in perspective, OVO Energy actually reported a pre-tax loss of about £5 million that same year. So, they paid £40m out, which helped contribute to them reporting a loss. This is a perfectly legal accounting practice apparently known as intra-group licensing, but the effect is pretty straightforward: by moving this huge cost onto the UK supply company’s books, it dramatically reduces its reported profit here.

This is where it gets contentious for us as bill-payers. When a company’s profit is low or negative, its corporation tax bill is also reduced. So, there’s a legitimate concern that these large internal payments are minimising the tax contribution OVO Energy makes in the UK, which funds public infrastructure and services. Several MPs have raised this exact point, arguing it’s unfair, especially during a period where household energy bills have been historically high and people are struggling. Customers are paying their bills, a portion of which is being transferred internally as a licensing fee, potentially reducing the tax paid on that revenue.

OVO has defended the practice. They state these fees are for genuine services like technology, brand development and strategic support provided by the parent group, which in turn helps the supply business operate. They argue it’s a normal way to run a global group and that the UK business still invests heavily here. The payments are also reviewed by auditors to ensure they are justifiable.

However, the optics are undeniably 'difficult'. At a time when energy profits are a hot-button issue, the structure creates a perception (rightly or wrongly) that profits generated from UK customers are being shifted in a way that lowers the UK tax take. It feels like a system that works within the rules, but perhaps not in the spirit of contributing fairly during a national crisis. For me, it underscores a broader issue in how large, international companies can be structured. It’s legal, but it certainly doesn’t feel aligned with the idea of everyone paying their fair share when times are tough for the average household. 

Posted by: @editor

↑

OVO has defended the practice. They state these fees are for genuine services like technology, brand development and strategic support provided by the parent group, which in turn helps the supply business operate. They argue it’s a normal way to run a global group and that the UK business still invests heavily here. The payments are also reviewed by auditors to ensure they are justifiable.

However, the optics are undeniably 'difficult'. At a time when energy profits are a hot-button issue, the structure creates a perception (rightly or wrongly) that profits generated from UK customers are being shifted in a way that lowers the UK tax take. It feels like a system that works within the rules, but perhaps not in the spirit of contributing fairly during a national crisis. 

Unsurprising. Many of these companies flying the flag are pushing the boundaries... Brand value is a category difficult to pin down. Like Ohme, according to the marketing and other factors, may have a high "brand value". If we go by the level of customer complaints, etc the "brand value" may be much lower. 

Could companies whose head office is elsewhere in Europe contribute more to UK tax intake (in proportion) that these flag bearers?