The disastrous smart meter project in the UK has now had the expected benefits downgraded to just £11 per participating household per year. I wonder if this project was yet another vanity project that did not have a robust business case? Even at £22per household per year how did that justify a multi billion ££ scheme?
There have been so many problems, many forseeable – were they flagged and they carried on anyway? Or was the business case (if it existed) so flimsy that these things were not even considered?
The pace of technological change is so fast that over the ten-year life-cycle of the rollout did they not anticipate that the early equipment would be obsolete quite quickly?
We are all encouraged to switch suppliers regularly to keep bills competitive, did the project anticipate that the metres would not work if someone switched supplier?
And where did this figure of £22pa come from? Surely £11billion could have been spent a lot more effectively educating everyone on energy-saving, even supplying some energy saving equipment rather than just supplying a few graphs which was meant to stimulate people to save energy.
Time and again central or local government projects are proven to have weak business cases. Delivering a robust and realistic business case is not palatable to some, many fewer projects get run (and so fewer personal crusades get indulged) but this is public money, do we not have a responsiblity to spend it wisely, fewer projects maybe but the ones that run actually delivering benefits?