Calorific Value used on bills


I don’t see all the details about how my Gas usage is calculated. There’s an example, but why not do like EDF do and show the actual figures instead of the example?


23 replies

Userlevel 7
Badge +8
Hi,
it shows you your consumption on your statement, .and to the right hand side of this it shows how your usage is worked out .
on my statement, it shows my actual figures in this calculation . I know it says 'for example ' , but it is actually your consumption figure it uses .
so yes, your statements do actually show the actual calculation.
​​​​​​​hope this helps
Userlevel 7
Badge +9
Hi both

Is this what you mean?



​​​​​​​Stephen
Oh. I see! Thank you @stephenrand. I assumed that was an example (as stated), not an illustration. Reassuringly, I see my calorific value is different to yours (40.1 vs 39.3).
@Marc, perhaps I’m not alone in being misled by the wording? It’s not really an example is it?
Userlevel 7
Badge +10
@25quid and @Angelabikerbabe
​​​​​​​good point well made, I missed that one, if on every statement the illustration reflects the true calculation, the words for example should be removed, UNLESS it's an ofgem requirement.
The variation in calorific value is per service area and is expected.
Hi @Angelabikerbabe, sorry I didn’t see your helpful reply initially. Thank you too! And yes, my figures show real figures, it’s just they are mis-labelled.
Userlevel 7
Badge +9
25 quid;52603:
Reassuringly, I see my calorific value is different to yours (40.1 vs 39.3).


That may not be the only difference between us!! Reassuringly!!!

​​​​​​​Stephen
Userlevel 7
Badge +10
Is the reassurance proportional to DNO separation?
25 quid;52603:
Oh. I see! Thank you @stephenrand. I assumed that was an example (as stated), not an illustration. Reassuringly, I see my calorific value is different to yours (40.1 vs 39.3).
@Marc, perhaps I’m not alone in being misled by the wording? It’s not really an example is it?
25 quid;52603:
Oh. I see! Thank you @stephenrand. I assumed that was an example (as stated), not an illustration. Reassuringly, I see my calorific value is different to yours (40.1 vs 39.3).
@Marc, perhaps I’m not alone in being misled by the wording? It’s not really an example is it?



Hey @25 quid
I've checked this out with our Member services team, as I didn't know the answer.
It's because the values change throughout the year.
The change can occur due to:


  • Where it is sourced from
  • The physical composition of the gas
  • Local temperature and pressure
Marc;52681:



  • Where it is sourced from
  • The physical composition of the gas
  • Local temperature and pressure



Forgot one:
Time of year due to weather (hot or cold seasons)
Userlevel 7
Badge +10
let's cut out the middle-man... (but just to say that it's more complicated than one may at first think)
​​​​​​​
https://www.nationalgridgas.com/data-and-operations/calorific-value-cv
Don’t forget @Marc, the point is the labelling not the content.
Marc;52682:
Forgot one:
Time of year due to weather (hot or cold seasons)
25 quid;52768:
Don’t forget @Marc, the point is the labelling not the content.


True enough @25 quid
We're going to change the working so that it's much clearer.
Appreciate the feedback as ever! 😀

It’s not so simple @Marc. Checking my June bill my gas consumption was split into two sections at two different rates. The “example” just took the last of these. 

So it isn’t “my” readings, it can be an example. Thus if you changed the wording, it could be inaccurate like in my case in June. Haha, good luck to your dev/ops team figuring that one out!! Billing’s a baitch 

Userlevel 7
Badge +10

Would it not be sufficient to list the calorific value used for each of the used blocks of gas, and of course the kilowatt hours for each, and just list one calculation, with a note saying other blocks are calculated in the same way but with the appropriate calorific value?

 

As few of us are likely to wish to check the calorific value and volume correction figures independently, and as the conversion from MJ to kWh is a fixed value, would it not be simpler just to quote the calorific value of the gas supplied as kWh / m³  ?  This single figure would then relate the meter reading to the energy charged for.

Userlevel 7
Badge +10

As few of us are likely to wish to check the calorific value and volume correction figures independently, and as the conversion from MJ to kWh is a fixed value, would it not be simpler just to quote the calorific value of the gas supplied as kWh / m³  ?  This single figure would then relate the meter reading to the energy charged for.

@LeonardW It would but the statement info is mandated by Ofgem, not by PP. (and for good motives, if you just wrote a conversion figure mayhem might ensue- why is the figure different every month etc.)

However I don’t see why it can’t say  “We have used a figure of (for example) 11.19 kWh/cum” and the rest of the information need not change.

in fairness it does detail the calculation although the layout of that could be greatly improved.

Userlevel 7
Badge +9

I dont have gas but i am fairly certain showing all the calculation would be difficult as the calorific value changes everyday. And the figure used is simply the average figure from the billing period.

Userlevel 7
Badge +10

I dont have gas but i am fairly certain showing all the calculation would be difficult as the calorific value changes everyday. And the figure used is simply the average figure from the billing period.

@Jon1@LeonardW is only suggesting that actual figure stated as xx kWh/cu.m which is used  for the conversion (or figures/conversions if more than one period) on the statement  could be shown irrespective of where it originates.

Yes, I am suggesting that if the figure used for standardised calorific value were expressed in the appropriate units, it would not be necessary to confuse consumers by displaying the calculation, which is essentially just a conversion of units. 

As an erstwhile physics lecturer, I must say that if the calculation is shown, it should include the units for each quantity, e.g. 

(10 m³ x 1.02264 x 39.8 MJ/m³) ÷ 3.6 MJ/kWh = 113.1 kWh

rather than just

10 x 1.02264 x 39.8 ÷ 3.6 = 113.1

“Cancelling” the units on the top and bottom of each expression confirms that the result is in the correct units, and that none of the factors has been entered incorrectly.

Userlevel 7
Badge +10

@LeonardW 

I’m afraid the dumbing-down is a national epidemic, here’s an example of a relatives statement, not PP, it’s even worse in my opinion (that’s frustration not mitigation)

The weather has cooled, it’s only 291 degrees today…, you won’t need sunscreen…

(crossword clue: temperature can be confirmed with former Sun editor)

 

 

 

Yes, it is ridiculous that a company should express values as “meter units” or “metric units” without saying what they are. They might just as well express calorific value as horsepower-minutes per barrel.:relaxed:

OK, I’ve never heard of him, but for the benefit of anyone puzzled by your reference, Google tells me that Kelvin MacKenzie used to edit the Sun.:relaxed:

It’s a joy to see correct capitalisation in your SI units too. The number of times I cringe as people discuss Kelvin watts must be approaching a 1000!

Don’t even get me started on the Mega milli farce...

Userlevel 7
Badge +10

I only use milliBytes, I have a small appetite…

 

 

 

Reply