To MCS or not to MCS

[Andy]

They could;
-Monitor export and flag anything over stated capacity registered with MCS/DNO
-Monitor usage and export intelligently and surmise that the profile smells fishy, compared with what's declared.
-See a valid MCS certificate and make no more checks.

Eon told me they would be doing this.

[Andy]

I'm wondering if Octopus would

• notice this
• care

What do you guys think?

These are interesting questions that remain unanswered. Either those who are doing it don't want to publish the fact online. Or no one is doing it here.

Gut feeling is that they will have some level of checking. @15p, there is a small incentive to run a diesel generator to spin the meter backwards and get paid for it. While they may not mind a bit of unregulated extra PV, the negative publicity of it potentially being found out that the "green" company is paying for even a few non regulated generators running on whatever will burn is incentive for them to be at least a bit on the case.

If one were to try to add an under the radar array, export limiting it to not exceed the original MCS capacity is surely advisable.

Even with red diesel you'd be running at a significant loss there.

[SimonSays]

Just to keep this thread up to date, I asked Octopus if they'd force an MCS re-certification if I changed the inverter. The call center staffer I spoke to said he'd run it past the smart metering team, and asked me to call back yesterday (Monday) afternoon for an answer. So I called back, only to find that there was no trace of my request or transcript of the call. The person I spoke to yesterday immediately jumped to a "yes, you'd need to re-certify to ensure it's safe". I asked about Octopus Energy Services certifying and they said they'd come back to me.
However, re-reading the Ts&Cs: https://octopus.energy/policies/export- ... onditions/

5.8 Where you are unable to provide MCS, Flexi-Orb or equivalent certification under clause 5.5, you confirm that you are satisfied that the generation asset has been installed by a competent professional and meets all required industry standards and guidelines. Octopus accepts no liability for any loss, damage or injury resulting from the installation.

No mention of any monies changing hands. I'm feeling (perhaps over optimistically) that a literal reading of 5.8 could be OK to simply change out the inverter.

[Andy]

Interesting, I'm going through something similar with EON.


SEG Guidance for Generators

If you do not have an MCS certificate, your installation and installer should be
accredited in accordance with EN 45011 or EN ISO/IEC 17065:2012. You should
speak to your chosen SEG licensee to understand exactly what information they
need from you.

I didn't do the install myself and my installer was in fact MCS certified.

Guidance for licensees is slightly different.

4.7 The SLCs define an equivalent scheme as a scheme accredited in accordance with EN 45011 or EN ISO/IEC 17065:2012.

4.8 If a generator is unable to demonstrate that their installation is suitably certified, a SEG licensee is not obliged to offer payments under the SEG, but they can make payments if they wish.

[Tay]

Sorry I'm a bit late to this thread, I tried several months back to get Octopus to recognise my system so that I could feed in any surplus I might have, it is unlikely that currently I'd have any unless I went off on holiday during the summer for a few months.

However, I'm putting in another 2.3kWh of panels soon and thought there is more likelihood of keeping my batteries charged up and and may even have some surplus. I have DNO approval for 6.4kWh, effectively twice what I'll be able to do going forwards.

My setup is 25kWh of batteries, 2 x 575w panels and looking to triple that in the next month or so. I charge up at the cheapest rate according to Octopus Agile.

However, when I tried to switch over I got stumped at the MCS bit/Flexiorb, they were very insistent that I needed the MCS cert.
But, I could join their invitation only scheme that would cost me £250 up front, if I didnt get accepted they would refund £150 quid of the £250.

I did some sums and thought ***k it, I'll keep my solar to myself then.

I just grabbed this screen shots from the link they original sent me that still works.





So you need to work out if the 0.15p (or whatever it might be) going forwards is ever going to be recouped, for me given that the only surplus I would have would be when I'm not actually here it just didnt make sense, I would have been mighty pee'd if I lost £100 to find out that I couldnt do it.

As I said, the DNO has said that they are happy with my application and the 6.4kWh I 'could' put into the grid.


There is some bureaucracy somewhere holding things up.

Is it the MCS folks that are now pissed that they spent cash on training and marketing stuff for MCS certification or Octopus trying to figure out how to make cash out of this.

[Tay]

Also, I did read on the MCS site 'somewhere' that you might even need annual (or other I can't remember) inspection of your kit for continual MCS approval.

Not sure if I just made that up or what but remember seeing something like that, so I thought I'd just keep the solar to myself. Not really what I wanted to do but thems the breaks I guess.

[sharpener]

Also, I did read on the MCS site 'somewhere' that you might even need annual (or other I can't remember) inspection of your kit for continual MCS approval.

Not sure if I just made that up or what but remember seeing something like that, so I thought I'd just keep the solar to myself. Not really what I wanted to do but thems the breaks I guess.

Have trawled through a lot of MCS regs (most recently connected with HP installation) but I have never come across this or seen it mentioned.

Maybe it's an urban myth like having to pay someone to do an annual service on your G3 unvented cylinder.

[Tay]

yeah could be.

Or a myth by the MCS folks trying to grab some traction or the other side making it seem less viable.

I swear as my mind gets older I need to condition it to to bookmark this stuff as I can rarely find it again..

[Tay]

or perhaps, because I probably skimmed it, it was referring to the actually tradepeople needing recertification..

That seems more plausable