Tbh everyone doing it using as little as possible in the hours that mattered
On the surveys I added feedback that the current formulas were open to abuse and needed to be adjusted to prevent it, though I'm not sure how makes sense.
I also mentioned that people who used very little normally were unable to benefit from the system, as it also incentivizes load shifting the other way around. i.e. routinely using more when the saving sessions are more likely to happen.
As soon as the scheme was announced a bunch of us on here identified these same things immediately. What boffins came up with the scheme in the first place, it clearly would be open to these issues anyone with half a brain could see it.
No wonder country is in a mess when people in charge come up with such dumb ideas.
I think we think we won the 2d chess but they still won the 4d chess. I mean the scheme specifically incentivised using as much power as possible in the hours before, and then as little as possible in the hour itself. It'd take a lot of incompetence at every level of the command chain across several companies to not realise that.On the surveys I added feedback that the current formulas were open to abuse and needed to be adjusted to prevent it, though I'm not sure how makes sense.
I also mentioned that people who used very little normally were unable to benefit from the system, as it also incentivizes load shifting the other way around. i.e. routinely using more when the saving sessions are more likely to happen.
Octopus are working on a white paper (or may have released it by now) regarding the saving sessions. The figures mentioned are £400 million paid to the coal stations to stay on standby vs £100 million to customers via saving sessions for the same affect via reduced demand.
Found it: