Smart Water Meters

[Spartacus]

28 minutes ago, vladi said:

Water metering is a  scandal that merits another ITV  drama-documentary along the lines of Mr Bates vs The Post Office.

Please explain why this is a scandal, I don't get your point of reference 

[Underhook]

I’m going to try my best to explain here how a smart meter works and why any comparison to the Horizon/Post Office scandal is very, very wide of the mark. Here we go -

— believe it or not but the South East of England is one of the most water scarce regions in Europe. It is essential that water consumption per capita is reduced in the future. This is a good thing 

- a smart meter ensures that a customer pays for exactly the amount of water they use, no more no less. The idea behind this is to make bills fairer and to target reduced per capita consumption in the long run. Again, a good thing 

- historically water bills have been based on the rateable value of a property, making it feasible for a large detached house with many occupants to pay the same water bill as a person living nearby on their own. If you want to talk about scams or corruption etc, the existing system is surely much worse than what is being proposed under full smart metering!

- as households move to smart meters, homes with low water consumption (single occupants, the elderly) typically pay less than their previous bill, whereas larger consumers pay more. Again this is completely fair, and I am mystified why this upsets people so much 

- if your bill increases by a large amount as a result of the switch, there is a 12 month transition period to help you, and moreover special discounts are available for vulnerable customers if you apply for them

- importantly, water companies are regulated and do not profit from this change. There is absolutely no scam/conspiracy etc here. If you are paying more, somebody else is paying less, and in the long run it balances out. All water companies are also subject to a revenue true up every 5 years, in which any over collected revenues must be handed back to customers via reduced bills (or increased bills if they under collect). This is publicly available information if you are interested

- in summary getting a smart meter is a good thing and you are playing a small but important part in managing a scarce resource. Your kids will thank you for it. You aren’t being scammed and it isnt a private equity style money spinner for anybody

 

 

[vladi]

On 14/01/2024 at 17:46, Spartacus said:

Please explain why this is a scandal, I don't get your point of reference 

The scandal relates to the methods by which the  owners of the water companies and other utilities have  bled these companies dry by by various financial strategies. 

Without exception, the utilities were debt free when privatise. They also had significant assets in the form of land and property.
The foreign buyers operating in different tax jurisdictions adopted the following strategies:-

1. Sell off assets - such as land in the water catchment areas.
2 Sell off other assets such as buildings and other property.
3. Pay massive dividends to the parent company overseas.
4. Take on debt to fund the dividends.
5. Take on ore debt - which can be offset against tax.

The worst offenders are such "investors" a McQuarrie Bank ( Australia) and the Ontario Teachers Pensioni fund  to mention just two. There are many others.
 

Our Tory Government treats such buy-outs as "Inward Investment" and they brag about how much more inward investment the UK gets compared to other European countries.

The reality, sadly, is that these foreign takeovers remove these utilities from the UK tax base so the Exchequer has less tax income. Less tax, means less funding for education, NHS, infrastructure etc etc.
Other countries such as France and Germany have legislation which is targeted towards preventing foreign take overs. They protect their tax base.

I could give you the names of 50 utilities and large businesses that are foreign owned and which pay no UK tax. Just look up Cadburys and the promises that Mondolez made about manufacturing, employment, tax etc etc

 

 

[Underhook]

15 hours ago, vladi said:

The scandal relates to the methods by which the  owners of the water companies and other utilities have  bled these companies dry by by various financial strategies. 

Without exception, the utilities were debt free when privatise. They also had significant assets in the form of land and property.
The foreign buyers operating in different tax jurisdictions adopted the following strategies:-

1. Sell off assets - such as land in the water catchment areas.
2 Sell off other assets such as buildings and other property.
3. Pay massive dividends to the parent company overseas.
4. Take on debt to fund the dividends.
5. Take on ore debt - which can be offset against tax.

The worst offenders are such "investors" a McQuarrie Bank ( Australia) and the Ontario Teachers Pensioni fund  to mention just two. There are many others.
 

Our Tory Government treats such buy-outs as "Inward Investment" and they brag about how much more inward investment the UK gets compared to other European countries.

The reality, sadly, is that these foreign takeovers remove these utilities from the UK tax base so the Exchequer has less tax income. Less tax, means less funding for education, NHS, infrastructure etc etc.
Other countries such as France and Germany have legislation which is targeted towards preventing foreign take overs. They protect their tax base.

I could give you the names of 50 utilities and large businesses that are foreign owned and which pay no UK tax. Just look up Cadburys and the promises that Mondolez made about manufacturing, employment, tax etc etc

 

 

How do any of these points relate to whether or not to install a smart water meter? I couldn’t follow any connection 

[Spartacus]

Thanks Vladi 

A clear explanation of the issues at Thames, but as underhook.said, none of them point to watermeters being a scandal.

I agree its scandalous how water companies are run which is different to installing tools to help us pay proportionally for the water we use. 

[vladi]

The water companies lobbied hard to make the installation of meters compulsory. It's the lobbying that is the scandal. They lobbied for meter for  reasons as follows:-

1. It will reduce consumption and this will allow the water companies to reduce reservoir capacity. So they save money in terms of upkeep of the dams , facilities and   equipment associated with the reservoirs

2. With fewer reservoirs, they can sell off the land preciously used by the reservoirs to developers

3. And now for one that not many people have considered is that they can introduce variable pricing . Hence in a drought year they could increase the price. 

[Spartacus]

I think point 3 will be difficult as water prices are controlled by ofwat so unless there is a change in legislation the water companies can't charge a variable rate depending on drought conditions. 

Reducing consumption is a good thing as the population is expanding and pitting more strain on limited reservoirs.  Not sure if there will be the potential ability to sell off the ones we have without replacing them. 🤔 

[sandyman]

Martin Lewis did a bit about water meters on his TV show this week. He echoed the thought here that smaller households in bigger houses will benefit the most.

One thing he did add though was that if you try a water meter and it turns out to be more expensive than the old rate, some companies will let you go back to the charge based on the rateable value.

But other companies once you switch there's no going back whatever the cost, and i've got a niggling feeling Thames Water is one of those. If I can ever get through to them on the phone that's the first thing I'll ask before I ask to have my meter activated.

[malumbu]

Thread seems to confuse two issues.  Firstly use of a resource.  Water meters encourage lower use which is a good thing.  We did a trial with Thames first, which showed that we would save money.  By chance we had a mains leak a few months after, only identified due to the meter, which Thames sorted by replacing the lead mains into the house with plastic.  They don't advertise that they do this and try to push you into their emergency/insurance scheme.  They even refunded us for the excess cost when the leak was ongoing.

Secondly the selling off of national assets.  I very much agree with the criticism of the privatisation of utilities.   Sadly many of us made a short term gain from this.  Apart from replacing my old lead mains I am no fan of Thames Water.

 

[Penguin68]

Water availability isn't an issue - or shouldn't be. Thames, when it wrote out to people, forecast a huge future requirement for water, based on population growth estimates over the next 20 years, but this additional requirement was actually less (by quite a margin) than the water lost now by Thames on leaks. They have 20 years to remedy this, should they care to invest anything into it, rather than pillaging Thames's accounts for Dividends. Additionally, as you have been keen to point out, we are entering a phase of global warming which will release substantial volumes of free water from icecaps etc. If Thames were not to sell existing water storage (i.e. reservoirs (to feed the hungry purses of their overseas owners) but actually invest in more, then the forecast 'water shortage' would be even less.

But instead they intend to use universal water meters to force (eventually, you bet) higher and higher charges onto Thames customers, thus driving even more revenue into their hungry maws, without investing any of 'their own. money on the system. Indeed if they can engineer 'shortages' (by continuing not to cure leaks) they can force even more out of us. All they are charging for is delivery, because supply is free from nature - not funding delivery properly - which they aren't - means that they are actually making their profits from the freely acquired water dropping from the sky. 

Oh, and Thames (after the Post Office) is the last company I would rely on to have accurate 'smart' metering or a system which could be trusted. And we will have no way of knowing the accuracy of smart meters. We will just have to 'trust' Thames Water!!!!

[Jules-and-Boo]

I think it is naïve to not think that water will not be a limited resource in the future.

 

[sally buying]

I had exactly the same problem.

 

Came and fixed a water meter in and then told me I was using more water than what was going over the Victoria Falls.

 

Monitored my daily flow and it turned out the meter was faulty and all their figures were  wrong.

 

 

[spider69]

TEST

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

23 minutes ago, Jules-and-Boo said:

I think it is naïve to not think that water will not be a limited resource in the future.

 

Water is already a limited resource.

 

1 hour ago, Penguin68 said:

They have 20 years to remedy this, should they care to invest anything into it...global warming which will release substantial volumes of free water from icecaps etc. If Thames were not to sell existing water storage (i.e. reservoirs (to feed the hungry purses of their overseas owners) but actually invest in more...

You seem to be unaware of the investment obligations imposed on water utilities as a condition of having the monopoly. Your suggestion that water shortages in SE England will be alleviated by melting snowcaps is...innovative.

[Penguin68]

1 hour ago, Dogkennelhillbilly said:

Your suggestion that water shortages in SE England will be alleviated by melting snowcaps is...innovative.

I'm talking about the ice at the North and South poles, the melting of some of which will raise sea levels substantially. According to the models. With warmer air temperatures there will be more evaporation of sea water and hence more rain. Which you may have noticed recently. So hardly innovative. Just science. 

[Brian up the hill]

Ice melting at the North Pole would make no difference to the sea-level as it is floating on water, which it displaces. Land ice, such as that found in Greenland and Scandinavia, would, of course cause a rise in sea-level. Same applies to the continental ice on Antarctica but not the ice flows offshore. It’s also worth remembering that as the sea warms, it will expand so creating another cause of sea-levels rising. This can increase the salinity of ground water near the cost so rendering it unsuitable for drinking unless processed in desalination plants,  which use enormous amounts of energy. So, given the complex web of cause and effect with the climate emergency, there is never a simple answer. 

[Penguin68]

Correct of course that north polar ice is already in water, but ice on e.g. Greenland glaciers may contribute to rising sea levels. And it still means that more free water in the oceans, and a hotter climate will lead to increased water vapour, itself a greenhouse gas of course, and more precipitation. And of course melted north polar ice is also free and available for evaporation. My point was not really about sea levels but about rain. Evaporated water (falling as rain) is salt free. And we're quite likely to get more of it, broadly a good thing if we still have reservoirs to store it in. Thames seems to want to rely on acquifers and abandon reservoirs - for a price. My argument is that, addressing leaks in the system, we don't have to be running out of water, despite Thames' scare tactics to get us on to meters. 

[Underhook]

15 minutes ago, Penguin68 said:

Correct of course that north polar ice is already in water, but ice on e.g. Greenland glaciers may contribute to rising sea levels. And it still means that more free water in the oceans, and a hotter climate will lead to increased water vapour, itself a greenhouse gas of course, and more precipitation. And of course melted north polar ice is also free and available for evaporation. My point was not really about sea levels but about rain. Evaporated water (falling as rain) is salt free. And we're quite likely to get more of it, broadly a good thing if we still have reservoirs to store it in. Thames seems to want to rely on acquifers and abandon reservoirs - for a price. My argument is that, addressing leaks in the system, we don't have to be running out of water, despite Thames' scare tactics to get us on to meters. 

Ok so here we go again -

I think you need to provide evidence for these statements rather than make such broad assumptions. The UK (and South East in particular) will face water shortages in the future and I think this point is fairly clear. This isn’t a water company conspiracy theory and is being driven by the research and findings of successive governments. The most recent paper published on this was in summer last year, it is worth a read -

https://environmentagency.blog.gov.uk/2023/06/22/securing-englands-water-resources-right-now-and-for-the-future/

The point about network leaks is also wide of the mark. 30%+ of water pipes in London are over 100 years old and therefore highly prone to leaks. To replace so much of the network would be incredibly expensive and not economically viable to consider, so much so that the regulator (and successive governments) have never mandated zero leaks as a target and probably never will. Regardless of ownership model (public vs private), this policy would not change because the issue here is affordability. Digging up tens of thousands of kilometres of London’s streets would place a generational cost burden on bill payers. Again, I am not making a statement here about which ownership model for utilities is better. This is simply a cost/feasibility point 

To say Thames Water is abandoning reservoirs is wrong on all levels. Thames has been actively trying to build a reservoir in Abingdon for many years, and to my knowledge has never closed a reservoir. Happy to be corrected if you have an example of this. Here is a link for the expansion plans for Abingdon -

https://www.thameswater.co.uk/about-us/regulation/strategic-water-resource-solutions/new-reservoir-in-abingdon

And to bring this back on topic, a smart meter is a great water to do your bit to save water and manage a key resource

 

 

 

[sweetgirl]

Before you go ahead with your thoughts of metering being great as it will limit usage, maybe you need to think about Thames water fixing their leaks!

properly fixing the leaks in the first instance will avoid a lot of issues!

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

Did you even read the post to which you are replying? 

[malumbu]

Ah, so many experts on the subject.  I simply use the facts when I know them, or if not do my research and refer to the experts. I don't have my own theories on 'global warming' ie climate change or the melting of the ice caps/rising of sea water.  This will be one of the biggest issues to humanity and nature, and contribute to further geopolitical insecurity, as in parts of the world where it will be difficult to live due to changes in weather, increase in disease, drout, excess temperatures, impact on food and the like, and more and more despots getting involved.

But if you know better, heard/saw something on GB news/Twitter/FB etc well then you know better than me.

 

[Spartacus]

Personally I'm not worried about global warming as NATO are warning us about a potential war with Russia within 10 years and any global warming will get cancelled out by the nuclear winter that results in my opinion 😉 

 

[Penguin68]

I think 20 years, rather than 10. Though could be next week! 

[Sue]

Well, this thread has taken a jolly turn 🙄