Smart Meters To Be Adjusted To Facilitate "Surge" Pricing.

[duncanp]

Now the real reason for have smart meters rammed down our throats is coming out.

The default setting is to be adjusted so that they automatically send readings to the supplier every 30 minutes.

This will permit "surge" pricing, whereby the price per unit is increased at busy times.

What the report doesn't say is how the energy companies define what is meant by busy times, and what will they do if everyone switches to using appliances at times when the rate is cheaper.

What gets me is the smarmy quotes from people in the energy sector trying to spin this as being good for consumers

Greg Jackson, chief executive of Octopus Energy, said: “This change would be extremely good for consumers.

“I cannot imagine that any energy company is going to force time of use tariffs on customers,

Pull the other one mate, it's got bells on.

A spokesman for Ofgem said: “This major system upgrade is a significant milestone on Britain’s path to net zero.

“It will enable a more efficient, flexible and greener energy system which will save billions of pounds per year on all consumers’ energy bills.

If you want to save me money on my energy bill, then don't put the <bleeping> price up by 54%, with the promise of more to come in the autumn.

Smart meter overhaul to open gates for ‘surge pricing’

Devices will automatically send suppliers an update on power use every half hour

www.telegraph.co.uk

Smart meter overhaul to open gates for ‘surge pricing’​

Devices will automatically send suppliers an update on power use every half hour

Smart meters are to automatically send energy suppliers half-hourly updates on their customers' power use in a revolutionary move that will allow "surge pricing" in millions of households' bills.

The energy regulator Ofgem will be granted legal powers in May allowing it to change the way smart meters operate, so that information about usage is sent to suppliers every 30 minutes by default.

Suppliers will be able to use the data to change consumer energy prices as much as 48 times per day, allowing them to charge more at peak times.

The plans are viewed by industry experts as a key stepping stone towards “time of use” tariffs, which would charge customers different rates for energy throughout the day depending on demand.

This could mean that households pay more during the busiest periods, raising the possibility that they could be penalised for watching television, boiling the kettle or charging gadgets at popular times such as mornings and evenings.


Consumer rights groups have also warned that people with poorly insulated homes, old-fashioned appliances or health conditions that require round-the-clock support may lose out without safeguards.

But energy company bosses and Ofgem on Tuesday insisted the plans will ultimately benefit most customers, saving them between £1.6bn and £4.5bn overall.

This is because the changes will let more people take advantage of lower prices at “off peak” times, in turn easing demand at peak times and lowering prices for everyone.

A timeline published by Ofgem says it will formally gain the powers to introduce the changes in May. They will be implemented by 2025.

Smart meters already have the capability to send half-hourly use reports to energy providers, but at present a customer must "opt in" to switch this on. Ofgem is intending to change the rules so that the updates are on by default. Customers who do not want to share this data will have to ask to "opt out".

Ofgem has said people who already have smart meters won’t have their preferences changed until they enter a new energy contract.

Households with a smart meter will also have to submit a mandatory reading every day, rather than once a month under the current provisions.

At present, suppliers typically do not know exactly how much power households are using throughout the day.

This means companies generally charge a flat rate for electricity and gas, although some including Octopus and British Gas have offered “free” power to customers during less busy times to encourage them to voluntarily share smart meter data.

With the advent of electric cars - which will increase pressure on the grid - understanding hourly usage patterns will become crucial.

Ideally, Ofgem and energy companies want to encourage people to use less power during the busiest periods. This would mean less investment is needed for upgrading grid infrastructure.

Greg Jackson, chief executive of Octopus Energy, said: “This change would be extremely good for consumers.

“I cannot imagine that any energy company is going to force time of use tariffs on customers, so it is like the reduced yellow-label food items at supermarkets.

“People who want a bargain can grab them, while everyone else benefits because it reduces waste.”

A spokesman for Ofgem said: “This major system upgrade is a significant milestone on Britain’s path to net zero.

“It will enable a more efficient, flexible and greener energy system which will save billions of pounds per year on all consumers’ energy bills.

“Ofgem will work closely with industry to make sure it delivers this major upgrade while ensuring those in vulnerable circumstances remain protected.”

Citizens Advice is broadly supportive as well but has previously warned that setting “normal” thresholds for energy use, and charging people more if they exceed them, could unfairly punish those who cannot easily change their habits.

“For example, energy inefficient housing with private landlords not taking action, large family sizes, or having old appliances in the home which they cannot afford to replace,” the consumer watchdog said.

“Someone’s ability to alter energy usage behaviour should also be taken into account. A dialysis patient needs a higher temperature in their home and should not be asked to compromise on that.”

Ofgem believes the changes will save all consumers money and spark a revolution in how power consumption is managed, potentially leading to peer-to-peer energy trading, gadgets that turn on at certain times and the use of electric car batteries to store household power - or sell it back to the grid.

Martin Young, an energy analyst at Investec, said the overhaul would likely prompt more suppliers to offer time of use tariffs.

He said: “Ultimately, this is all building towards a more flexible energy system and by extension flexible prices.

“But I would still think you will always still have a simple, more vanilla tariff for those who want them.”

Mr Young added that technology, such as electric cars which charge when energy is cheap and sell back to the grid at busy periods, may also cushion the impact of pricier periods on many consumers.

The changes do not affect people with standard meters.

 

[mikeg]

But also will incentivise usage of power when it's cheaper. It'll probably result in cheaper power prices overall. My mother and grandmother were on the agile octopus tarrif before the energy price cap became cheaper and whilst energy prices were a competitive market saved a small fortune. Even if they didn't adjust their usage much it tended to work out cheaper. Putting the washing machine on overnight made them win big. Obviously cooking has to be done at expensive time but in general as long as you avoided 4-7pm for anything that could be moved you'd save. And overnight you paid peanuts especially if it was windy.

It's basically yield management for electricity. As long as it doesn't get to counterproductive levels for the peak like rail fares have and is more like rail fares used to be, I have no problem. And there's still the energy price cap for those who don't want it

 

[Dai Corner]

Sounds like a good idea.

It should help smooth out the peaks and hopefully avoid having to fire up the most polluting generators like coal, diesel and gas turbines.

They should introduce a 'true green' tariff for those most concerned about CO2 emissions. Their power could be cut off when there's no renewable available.

 

[AM9]

'Twas always the intention of smart meters to enable this and it naïve to think otherwise. Ever since the concept of off-peak charges and split tariffs started (first 'White Meters', then it was re-branded as 'Economy Seven'), it has been clear that the suppliers want to guide consumers to use less electricity when the system is running at or near it's peak capacity and make less time-critical demand when the system has spare capacity.
There have been countless TV programmes showing the inside of grid control rooms where operators watch TV to prepare for major surges in demand (e.g. during commercial breaks in popular programmes such a Coronation St and sports events) - known as 'TV pickup'. The heaviest loads are still responsible for short-term peak fluctuations of over 2GW which must be accommodated to prevent the supply falling outside its legal limits.
Industry has been used to peak limits and penalty charges for damand over agreed threshold for decades. So consumers must expect dynamic pricing to provide the nudge to be more considerate in their demand for power.

 

[Failed Unit]

I must admit that we have an interesting conflict here,

I lot of people could change their behavior and say only use washing machines "off-peak". I know when economy 7 came out, my parents had things like washing machines / dish washers etc on timers. But the fire and rescue services don't like that idea as it doesn't help them if things catch fire overnight (low risk of course, but if something is going to catch fire it is always preferred if you are awake and notice it quickly). It would would be great if we did a lot of energy intensive things overnight but it is not always possible. But other things like charging your EV possibly do need to be done overnight. However at the moment if you can afford and EV you are unlikely to be bother about the cost of electric varying at certain times of day.

But to me the principle is dangerous, you need to do stuff that involves high power usage, cooking for example. Making it to expensive for people to cook say between 1700 and 2000 will result in some people making the choice not to eat, (Sadly we already know people are making this choice when it comes to buying clothes among other things)

 

[AM9]

I must admit that we have an interesting conflict here,

I lot of people could change their behavior and say only use washing machines "off-peak". I know when economy 7 came out, my parents had things like washing machines / dish washers etc on timers. But the fire and rescue services don't like that idea as it doesn't help them if things catch fire overnight (low risk of course, but if something is going to catch fire it is always preferred if you are awake and notice it quickly). It would would be great if we did a lot of energy intensive things overnight but it is not always possible. But other things like charging your EV possibly do need to be done overnight. However at the moment if you can afford and EV you are unlikely to be bother about the cost of electric varying at certain times of day.

But to me the principle is dangerous, you need to do stuff that involves high power usage, cooking for example. Making it to expensive for people to cook say between 1700 and 2000 will result in some people making the choice not to eat, (Sadly we already know people are making this choice when it comes to buying clothes among other things)

Yes I agree that is a consideration, but the obligation on safety then falls on the manufacturers of goods that are likely to be operated unattended and the legislators of safety standards, - typically, many white goods have plastic and other potentially flammable materials embodied in their construction. It is a sobering thought that whatever the issues with the cladding, escaper provisions et al of Grenfell Towerwere, the fire was started by a fault in a fridge-freezer* that had a plastic back panel. Had it been a metal panel that is mandatory in many other western countries, the fire would have been unlikely to have started.
* ironically, an appliance that by definition is functionally required to and designed to run 24/7.

Back on topic, the choice of unattended running of domestic appliances here is one that will undoubtedly change domestic safety considerations in the future, but the alternative would be even more expensive than the inconvenience that a few consumers will have to endure when dynamic pricing becomes widespread. Not only the generation capacity but also the distribution network would require significant reinforcement to cope with unbridled peaks which would make the current 54% hike in prices look quite moderate.

 

[MotCO]

I was always credulous that smart meters would save users money by users watching their smart meter all the time and deciding not to switch the kettle on or whatever. Now the truth is out.

Aside from the ability to charge users at different rates depending upon the time of day, there is also the ability to cut users off when there is insufficient power available. Are people happy with that?

And what is this policy trying to achieve? It won't reduce carbon emissions since the demand will still be there, it will just shift when the energy is required. If it is to recognise we don't produce enough power, then we need to build more power stations. These can be gas, coal or nuclear since wind power canot be relied upon, and little Britain trying to avoid using gas or coal powered power stations will make absolutely no difference to global carbon emissions when China, India, and indeed Germany are still building them (and that assumes that CO2 emissions are a 'bad thing', but that is a subject for another day).

 

[duncanp]

Putting the washing machine on overnight made them win big.

It could lead to anti social behaviour such as putting on the washing machine late at night and early in the morning, and as we have noted there is a risk that these appliances could catch fire or cause a flood if left unattended.

If electricity is priced such that it is expensive between 17:00 and 21:00, and cheaper later at night, that could lead to a surge in demand once the cheaper price kicks in.

We have seen this happen with peak/off peak on the railways, where the first off peak train, particularly on a Friday evening, is just as busy as trains during the peak period. Avanti West Coast have realised this, and Fridays is off peak all day in order to smooth out demand.

And if people start to use electricity more after 9pm, say, then the energy companies will put the price after 9pm up, which will lead to people changing their habits to constantly chase the cheaper price per unit.

As has been mentioned, it could lead to undesirable behaviour, such as people on tight budgets being reluctant to cook meals when they need to eat, just because the price per unit is too high at that time.

 

[Failed Unit]

I was always credulous that smart meters would save users money by users watching their smart meter all the time and deciding not to switch the kettle on or whatever. Now the truth is out.

This point actually is a big concern, yes I may look at the meter and not make a cup of tea because of the price, but if they really are doing true demand based pricing people will struggle to plan for anything.

It is a cold Friday night in December (-10oC) no wind, dark, wet etc. They kind of night where people are likely to be at home. You look at your smart meter and see that the price is sky high and switch off your heating.

People would get used to time based tariffs, I am old enough to remember having a sticker on the phone which showed the cheap rate, peak rate and intermediate rate. But the best I feel realistically people will accept is 17:00 - 22:00 is expensive so they can plan for it. As AM9 stated above it won't really help the grid with commercial breaks, but neither will pricing every 30 minutes. Imaging a football match, where they ramp up the price of electricity during the half time period.

I suspect this is a fishing article to be honest, put something that will never work on out in the public domain, watch reaction, then come out with something that is more reasonable (but would never be agreed if it was the first proposal, as people have seen this proposal B is better than proposal A even though they are both bad).

I know electricity generation is all about smoothing demand, but sadly the summer will always have lower demand and cold winters higher. Save all you washing until summer

 

[GB]

As someone who lives in a flat I'll be pretty p33ed if everyone starts their washing machines/dryers/dish washers at night!

 

[najaB]

Now the real reason for have smart meters rammed down our throats is coming out.

The default setting is to be adjusted so that they automatically send readings to the supplier every 30 minutes.

This will permit "surge" pricing, whereby the price per unit is increased at busy times.

Time of use charging is very common in other countries. As others have pointed out, it encourages behaviour changes that result in cheaper electricity overall as chopping the top off the peak allows the grid to be sized for a smaller peak load (meaning fewer, smaller peak plants are needed) and uses up excess renewable capacity when the wind is blowing overnight.

 

[edwin_m]

I know electricity generation is all about smoothing demand, but sadly the summer will always have lower demand and cold winters higher. Save all you washing until summer

I don't think seasonality is so much of an issue. Some plant can be shut down for maintenance in the summer if demand is known to drop. Increased need for air conditioning may change that in future, although solar generators will be more able to supply at those times.

Time of use charging is very common in other countries. As others have pointed out, it encourages behaviour changes that result in cheaper electricity overall as chopping the top off the peak allows the grid to be sized for a smaller peak load (meaning fewer, smaller peak plants are needed) and uses up excess renewable capacity when the wind is blowing overnight.

I don't think most people would have a problem with a published scale of rates that varies at predictable times of day.

What's more difficult, and probably needed in an age of renewables, is pricing that responds in near real time in situations such as when it is dark and still so solar and wind are of little use. Not only will people struggle to plan for this, but also if each supplier made their own pricing decisions they could tweak the price and time bands to squeeze more money out of their own consumers. It's virtually impossible for a consumer to monitor this and compare with the behaviour of alternative suppliers. So there may be a need for National Grid or some other body to define and publish, at least a few hours ahead, whether "peak", "off-peak" or "intermediate" energy bands will apply (probably different names and maybe more bands). Suppliers could then define their own scale of charges for each band, but consumers could check a website for the applicable band over the next couple of hours before deciding when to put their washing on (for example).

A further option would be load shedding, but unless people wanted to be cut off freezer and all this would only work if anyone using it had fairly major changes to their wiring to split it into essential and optional circuits. However electric vehicle chargers will probably be able to do this by alternative means, communicating with the supplier to establish the best time for charging. If the customer agrees and defines a minimum charge level, these could feed battery power back into the grid when the battery is above that level and the grid is short of power.

I wonder also if all domestic appliances should incorporate smoke detectors that would shut the machine off and make a loud noise.

 

[Starmill]

One of the most important things that we need to do to decarbonise the electricity grid is try to shift usage away from the peaks of demand. Most people can afford to, say, run their heating for three hours in anticipation of an expected peak and then have it shut off for three hours because their house will have adequately warmed up (providing they've got the necessary insulation of course - see the thread about precisely this). Yes, it's possible to meet peaks in demand using supply side interventions such as the current water pumped storage facilities, or a new generation of heavy fluid storage, but that will be an expensive option compared to moderating our demand. Overall both will be needed, but it's about finding the right mixture.

I'd like to be able to pay at a lower rate for my energy for a setting where my background services such as heating can be controlled by the energy company. My house would still be warm when I want it to be, but I'd get cheaper energy and the grid would less peaky.

there is also the ability to cut users off when there is insufficient power available. Are people happy with that?

It what already happens? So if you're unhappy with that you need to organise your own dedicated electricity supply and not use the grid at all. Some people have done so.

And what is this policy trying to achieve? It won't reduce carbon emissions since the demand will still be there, it will just shift when the energy is required.

By definition this is precisely what's required to decarbonise the grid at reasonable cost - to remove the peaks.

For example, hypothetically if we had invested in the nuclear capacity we could meet more than 90% of our demand with nuclear generation by spreading it out across the day and only permitting the small proportions of variances in demand to which nuclear power stations can actually respond within their operating cycle. We're not there and that's not what I'm suggesting, it's just an example that shows how much decarbonisation could be achieved purely through load spreading.

Sounds like a good idea.

It should help smooth out the peaks and hopefully avoid having to fire up the most polluting generators like coal, diesel and gas turbines.

They should introduce a 'true green' tariff for those most concerned about CO2 emissions. Their power could be cut off when there's no renewable available.

I don't think people can easily tolerate no power at all, but a tariff that works along the lines you suggest could certainly still work by using an in home battery, using a penalty pricing rate, or by a premium which goes to investing in a new generation of energy storage facilities.

To put it another way, charging people more for electricity use at the top of a peak will allow people who use it at the lowest points on the graph to pay less. That can only be a good thing. The current situation means that people who are using energy at the times of lowest demand are generally subsidising those who use it at the highest.

 

[MotCO]

It what already happens? So if you're unhappy with that you need to organise your own dedicated electricity supply and not use the grid at all. Some people have done so.

Does it? I'm aware that industrial users may have their power supply cut off occasionally, but not domestic users.

One of the most important things that we need to do to decarbonise the electricity grid

Is it? We need a certain level of CO2 in the atmosphere for things to grow, but do we want to eliminate it all? I agree we should reduce pollution, but that is not the same thing.

There is also another argument that if we go to net zero, firstly our power will be much more expensive than our competitors' with consequent higher costs for industrial and domestic users, and secondly, in global terms we do not produce that much CO2, so anything we do to reduce it will have only an infinitesimally small impact on global C02.

 

[High Dyke]

I knew there was a reason I've ignored the frequent offers to have a smart meter fitted.

 

[Starmill]

Is it

Yes.

We need a certain level of CO2 in the atmosphere for things to grow, but do we want to eliminate it all?

No. But luckily we don't need to worry about that, because all we're doing is reducing our atmospheric carbon emissions with human causes to near zero. It's not going to begin to actually reduce the carbon in the atmosphere until we reach net negative, which is a very very long way off.

There is also another argument that if we go to net zero, firstly our power will be much more expensive than our competitors' with consequent higher costs for industrial and domestic users

It's unclear what you mean by competitors but this isn't necccesarily true. Onshore wind power is much cheaper than the cost of mining and burning coal for example. At scale offshore wind is proving cheaper nowadays.

in global terms we do not produce that much CO2, so anything we do to reduce it will have only an infinitesimally small impact on global C02.

Again if you examine our cumulative atmospheric carbon emissions from human causes the UK, US and Western European countries are the highest in the world, much higher than China, India etc. Sorry.

 

[Domh245]

Is it? We need a certain level of CO2 in the atmosphere for things to grow, but do we want to eliminate it all? I agree we should reduce pollution, but that is not the same thing.

Humans (& animals &c.) will continue to naturally emit CO2, we don't need to worry about removing it all! The pressing issue is to stop adding it to the extent that we are!

I knew there was a reason I've ignored the frequent offers to have a smart meter fitted.

I can't remember exactly where I read it, but I'd seen previous proposals (possibly in the adjacent field of DUoS charges for domestic customers - paying for the cables into the house rather than the units of electricity) where people without smart meters are basically assumed to have a normal pattern of distribution and the consumption data from manual reads is backfilled to create the half-hourly profile. This means that you will end up paying more than the person who did get a smart meter & does their laundry at night

 

[MotCO]

It's unclear what you mean by competitors but this isn't necccesarily true. Onshore wind power is much cheaper than the cost of mining and burning coal for example. At scale offshore wind is proving cheaper nowadays.

By competitors, I meant industry in other countries not persuing net zero. And if wind power is cheaper, why does it need massive subsidies?

 

[Starmill]

By competitors, I meant industry in other countries not persuing net zero. And if wind power is cheaper, why does it need massive subsidies?

This is off topic here really but in general it doesn't need subsidies any more, just capital to build up the capacity, same as a new build coal plant would. It would be cheaper to generate electricity if we could build some more on land too, but that's quasi-prohibited.

 

[davews]

I have finally succumbed and will be having a smart meter fitted next week. I specifically selected the 'send data daily' option rather than the default every 15 minutes. It will be interesting what I end up with.

 

[najaB]

Does it? I'm aware that industrial users may have their power supply cut off occasionally, but not domestic users.

If demand exceeds supply for an extended period the load will be dropped off to protect the network. Look up rolling blackouts/brownouts. Fortunately not something that happens frequently in the UK. At least, not yet.

 

[duncanp]

Time based tarriffs do not necessarily encourage people to use less electricity, they just encourage people to use electricity at different times of the day or night.

A washing machine uses the same number of units whether you are doing the washing at 2am or 2pm.

A lot depends on exactly when the most expensive charging period is, and what is the difference between that and the cheaper charging period.

Too much of a difference and there will be a big surge in demand when the cheaper period kicks in.

 

[najaB]

Time based tarriffs do not necessarily encourage people to use less electricity, they just encourage people to use electricity at different times of the day or night.

Oh, naturally. The electricity companies don't want to sell less electricity. They want to be able to sell the same amount with a smaller installed generation capacity.

 

[edwin_m]

If demand exceeds supply for an extended period the load will be dropped off to protect the network. Look up rolling blackouts/brownouts. Fortunately not something that happens frequently in the UK. At least, not yet.

Some major industrial users pay less on the understanding that their non-essential uses can be cut off if the grid gets short of power.

 

[AM9]

Time based tarriffs do not necessarily encourage people to use less electricity, they just encourage people to use electricity at different times of the day or night.

A washing machine uses the same number of units whether you are doing the washing at 2am or 2pm.

A lot depends on exactly when the most expensive charging period is, and what is the difference between that and the cheaper charging period.

Too much of a difference and there will be a big surge in demand when the cheaper period kicks in.

Spreading the load' cheap time' switch-on surges has been done since white meters were installed. The charging rate was switched by a radio receiver opicking up signals broadcast on long wave radio. There were several groups separated by a few minutes and meters were randonnmly assigned different groups to spread the surge. Even easier with smart meters where both national and local over load situations can be accommodated.

 

[Starmill]

Spreading the load' cheap time' switch-on surges has been done since white meters were installed. The charging rate was switched by a radio receiver opicking up signals broadcast on long wave radio. There were several groups separated by a few minutes and meters were randonnmly assigned different groups to spread the surge. Even easier with smart meters where both national and local over load situations can be accommodated.

Indeed. It's just really not that much of an issue. Unless of course everyone in the country stops using any electricity whatsoever except for at the times of day when the cheapest rate applies, which isn't going to happen!

 

[najaB]

Unless of course everyone in the country stops using any electricity whatsoever except for at the times of day when the cheapest rate applies...

Which then becomes the new time at which peak rates apply.

 

[skyhigh]

Octopus have had an experimental 'Agile' tariff for a while now, which I imagine is along the lines of how any future tariffs may look. Each 30 min period has a different price up to a max of 35p/kWh, published the day before. When demand is low but supply is high (a stormy night for example when there's plenty of wind power about) the price might even go negative - i.e. they pay you for every unit you use.

30 min readings also make some of their other tariffs possible - for example Go Faster where you get 4 or 5 hours at an off-peak rate (you can choose a start time from 2130-0130 depending on what suits you best). That wouldn't be possible with a standard meter.

For what it's worth, they've done several trials that make use of the 30-min readings from a smart meter - they had a promotion where people who completed a survey would get 1 hour of free electricity per month, and now there's a trial where if you meet a target in electricity reductions in a specified hour when demand is high you get the power you use in that hour free.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

How will users be informed of the price changes and with how much warning?

Say I turn my washing machine on at 1145, at 1159 I receive a text to say "from 1200 your unit price for electricity is increasing from 10p per unit to 100p per unit as we've just this minute decided that 1200 to 1300 is going to be a high demand period". Just what am I supposed to do? How many times can you turn off and back on the Sunday Roast before it is ruined? I suppose in the 'meat-free future' we will be eating salad anyway.

In a previous thread people stated categorically that this type of pricing was never going to happen. As is so often the case, a tin-foil hat is a wise choice of garment.

The energy companies are not exactly covering themselves in glory at the present time, ramping up direct debits for those on budget schemes to well over the amount needed to maintain a neither positive or negative balance at annual review. They cannot be trusted. I simply cannot believe that Citizens Advice are 'broadly supportive'.

In the recent severe Texas storms, there were people receiving bills for $tens of thousands because they 'chose' to keep their heating on. I suppose we should all go out and buy log burners 'just in case' and then chop all the trees down in the local park to ensure a back-up fuel supply.

 

[devon_metro]

How will users be informed of the price changes and with how much warning?

Wholesale prices in GB (NI/ROI has a separate grid) run several auctions to decide the next days pricing. There is a half hourly auction that runs around 1530. The other auctions cover hourly periods. It makes sense to tie any time of use tariff to the half hourly auction. This is how the Octopus Agile tariff works - there's a formula linked to the wholesale price. That way you'll know tomorrows prices by ~4pm. In theory suppliers could simulate an auction and generate their own prices at different times in a similar fashion, though they'd want it to be based on a best estimate for the wholesale spot auction to avoid significant losses in case real prices prove different.