Go VS Agile

[Oldgreybeard]

Being a pragmatist I would buy a 2nd hand electric scooter, 'sure I've got an EV'. Moral conundrum avoided.

I can't see anything wrong with assuming that any vehicle that is powered by electricity should qualify. Depends how they word the clause in their supply contract (probably buried in their Terms and Conditions somewhere), but logically an electric bike or scooter could, within the broadest definition, be assumed to be an EV.

Looking at the Octopus website, all I can find is this definition, which seems broad enough to include ebikes and electric scooters:

“EV” means electric vehicle.

The moral issue is the one that bothers me, as I find it hard to be critical of anyone for lying if I were to lie myself. Bit like when I got my hair cut a couple of days ago. I got a £2 discount for being a pensioner, but that was just taken on trust by the barber - I could have been under pension age and lied to get the discount, but that would have been fraud, plain and simple, obtaining monetary advantage by deceit.

[Joeboy]

Being a pragmatist I would buy a 2nd hand electric scooter, 'sure I've got an EV'. Moral conundrum avoided.

I can't see anything wrong with assuming that any vehicle that is powered by electricity should qualify. Depends how they word the clause in their supply contract (probably buried in their Terms and Conditions somewhere), but logically an electric bike or scooter could, within the broadest definition, be assumed to be an EV.

Looking at the Octopus website, all I can find is this definition, which seems broad enough to include ebikes and electric scooters:

“EV” means electric vehicle.

The moral issue is the one that bothers me, as I find it hard to be critical of anyone for lying if I were to lie myself. Bit like when I got my hair cut a couple of days ago. I got a £2 discount for being a pensioner, but that was just taken on trust by the barber - I could have been under pension age and lied to get the discount, but that would have been fraud, plain and simple, obtaining monetary advantage by deceit.

My small effort would be akin to the difference between avoidance & evasion with regard to taxation. Penalties are very different but its best to keep it on the side of avoidance. Note I am not speaking of morals.

[Oldgreybeard]

What I find curious is why Octopus insist that this tariff is only available to those with an EV. I can understand the requirement for a tariff like Intelligent Octopus mandating that EV ownership is required, as that tariff passes control of EV charging over to Octopus, so they get to choose when to charge your EV (within the broad time window specified, I believe), by directly controlling either the charger or the car itself.

For a tariff that doesn't have any sort of control of demand it seems odd to insist that it's only available to EV owners, as technically I can't see a difference between charging an EV and charging a house battery. Octopus must have a reason for applying this contractual condition, just hard to fathom out what it could be.

[Joeboy]

What I find curious is why Octopus insist that this tariff is only available to those with an EV. I can understand the requirement for a tariff like Intelligent Octopus mandating that EV ownership is required, as that tariff passes control of EV charging over to Octopus, so they get to choose when to charge your EV (within the broad time window specified, I believe), by directly controlling either the charger or the car itself.

For a tariff that doesn't have any sort of control of demand it seems odd to insist that it's only available to EV owners, as technically I can't see a difference between charging an EV and charging a house battery. Octopus must have a reason for applying this contractual condition, just hard to fathom out what it could be.

Not sure myself. I contacted them today. Top flight EV, top flight charger, smet2 meter. Yet when I apply for intelligent Octopus it knocks me back...

Can only assume its a symptom of being ahead of the curve and they are spread thin. They need to catch up to the reality of a mixed EV world.

[nowty]

What I find curious is why Octopus insist that this tariff is only available to those with an EV. I can understand the requirement for a tariff like Intelligent Octopus mandating that EV ownership is required, as that tariff passes control of EV charging over to Octopus, so they get to choose when to charge your EV (within the broad time window specified, I believe), by directly controlling either the charger or the car itself.

For a tariff that doesn't have any sort of control of demand it seems odd to insist that it's only available to EV owners, as technically I can't see a difference between charging an EV and charging a house battery. Octopus must have a reason for applying this contractual condition, just hard to fathom out what it could be.

A while back someone asked Greg Jackson (CEO of Octopus Energy) why you need an EV and why you cannot have them with just home batteries.

His reply was along the lines of, they lose money on Octopus GO and had to bring in the EV requirement to avoid losing even more. They have it (Go) to show the regulators and Government that significant load shifts are possible with TOU tariffs. Regarding home batteries he also went on to say that a home battery was the perfect arbitrage.

In other words, home batteries are significantly worse for their profitability as you're not going to use much peak rate.

[Stinsy]

What I find curious is why Octopus insist that this tariff is only available to those with an EV. I can understand the requirement for a tariff like Intelligent Octopus mandating that EV ownership is required, as that tariff passes control of EV charging over to Octopus, so they get to choose when to charge your EV (within the broad time window specified, I believe), by directly controlling either the charger or the car itself.

For a tariff that doesn't have any sort of control of demand it seems odd to insist that it's only available to EV owners, as technically I can't see a difference between charging an EV and charging a house battery. Octopus must have a reason for applying this contractual condition, just hard to fathom out what it could be.

In the old days Go had a lower day rate than the standard tariff. This (I guess) is because Go customers use a lot less electric during the 4-7pm period when wholesale electric is ultra-expensive. Octopus therefore wanted to avoid people swapping to Go and abusing the cheaper peak-rate.

[Oldgreybeard]

What I find curious is why Octopus insist that this tariff is only available to those with an EV. I can understand the requirement for a tariff like Intelligent Octopus mandating that EV ownership is required, as that tariff passes control of EV charging over to Octopus, so they get to choose when to charge your EV (within the broad time window specified, I believe), by directly controlling either the charger or the car itself.

For a tariff that doesn't have any sort of control of demand it seems odd to insist that it's only available to EV owners, as technically I can't see a difference between charging an EV and charging a house battery. Octopus must have a reason for applying this contractual condition, just hard to fathom out what it could be.

A while back someone asked Greg Jackson (CEO of Octopus Energy) why you need an EV and why you cannot have them with just home batteries.

His reply was along the lines of, they lose money on Octopus GO and had to bring in the EV requirement to avoid losing even more. They have it (Go) to show the regulators and Government that significant load shifts are possible with TOU tariffs. Regarding home batteries he also went on to say that a home battery was the perfect arbitrage.

In other words, home batteries are significantly worse for their profitability as you're not going to use much peak rate.

Makes sense. He's spot on about those with home batteries not using much peak rate electricity. Just checked and our peak rate meter reading hasn't changed at all since 1st September, so we've gone about 8 weeks without using a single unit at that rate.

[AE-NMidlands]

A while back someone asked Greg Jackson (CEO of Octopus Energy) why you need an EV and why you cannot have them with just home batteries.

His reply was along the lines of, they lose money on Octopus GO and had to bring in the EV requirement to avoid losing even more. They have it (Go) to show the regulators and Government that significant load shifts are possible with TOU tariffs. Regarding home batteries he also went on to say that a home battery was the perfect arbitrage.

In other words, home batteries are significantly worse for their profitability as you're not going to use much peak rate.

Makes sense. He's spot on about those with home batteries not using much peak rate electricity. Just checked and our peak rate meter reading hasn't changed at all since 1st September, so we've gone about 8 weeks without using a single unit at that rate.

I can well believe that.
A friend has had pv roofs (with FIT payments) on his house and also on a house he rents out for years now. Has recently got a Tesla Powerwall at his house and can't resist showing me how he hasn't used any peak-time electricity for months.
Even if you're not on a TOU tarriff I imagine it must give a very warm feeling knowing you are not adding to the peak-hours load on the grid.
A

[Joeboy]

Here's a scenario...

Nefariously embark on Go, caught. Banned from Octopus, also a Ripple WT owner. What happens to the Ripple investment as can't sell until two years holding period is complete.

Definition, 'caught bonnie'.

[Krill]

Could they force you to sell the ripple investment? And if so on what grounds, because it sounds like they could just revoke it with no repayment.

I ask because I'm always paranoid that if you don't have something in your possession you can't be certain that you can use it and "the system" will just make up rules to it's own benefit.