Smart meters too risky

SIR – The problem of smart meters going dumb on change of supplier (Letters, June 28) has been known for years. Meters from different manufacturers comply to different standards.

The “foundation phase” of Smart Metering Equipment Technical Specifications (Smets1) installation was supposed to be for a limited number of meters, but because of numerous technical problems, only a hand full of Smets2 meters have been installed.

Only last week it was reported that EDF was fined by Ofgem for not installing the required number of smart meters, even though to do so would make a bad situation worse.

This week you report that Ofgem is attacking the energy suppliers over the situation they are creating. This appears inconsistent to say the least.

A major problem with Smets1 meters is they are vulnerable to cyber attack, as they don’t have the security features specified for Smets2. The population of Smets1 meters now exceeds 10 million.

A successful attack on just 10 per cent could leave one million customers without power for weeks pending a meter change. A freedom of information request revealed that neither Ofgem nor the Ministry of Defence have contingency plans in place to deal with this scenario.

It is for this reason I refuse to have a Smets1 meter fitted. John Cowburn

Darwen, Lancashire

SIR – Demand for electricity is variable, while capacity is largely constant. Suppliers need to size for peak usage. It is not unreasonable to seek to improve the system of offering lower prices when there is spare capacity on the grid, and to charge more when reaching peak demand.

Encouraging people to manage discretionary usage efficiently is wholly reasonable. Philip Stewart

London SW14

SIR – The fundamental issue is whether a smart meter will enable a typical family to reduce its energy consumption.

There are now sufficient smart meters in service for this to be settled beyond reasonable doubt. The fact that it has not been indicates that the savings are not being achieved.

The only certain savings are for energy suppliers, who can eliminate meter-reader costs and increasingly automate billing.

I was pleased to note a recent item in The Daily Telegraph reporting that the National Audit Office was looking into this. The £11 billion cost of the exercise is not insignificant.

If this expenditure of taxpayers’ money cannot be justified there must be consequences for a government department. J R Ball

Hale, Cheshire