Worked examplesSee how the evidence changes the decision
These examples explain the assessment method without presenting invented customers, testimonials or guaranteed savings. Each one shows what evidence is useful, how it is treated and where uncertainty remains.
Illustrative scenarios, not customer case studiesNo household, retailer result or savings claim is represented here. Real outcomes require current plan data and household-specific evidence.
Three common decisions
What a stronger assessment does differently
01Electricity plansThe same annual usage can produce a different plan ranking
Why is annual kWh not always enough to choose a time-of-use plan?
Evidence used
- A full year of half-hour electricity intervals
- Confirmed general-use and controlled-load registers
- Current retailer tariff periods and rates
Method
Price each measured interval against the published tariff period, then add supply, controlled-load, demand and eligible discount components separately.
Decision lesson
Two homes can use the same annual kWh but have different costs when one uses more electricity in peak periods. The stronger comparison preserves timing instead of applying a generic usage split.
Important limitation
A result can change when a tariff, eligibility rule, household routine or meter-data period changes.
02Solar and batteryExports do not show how much solar the home used directly
Why can similar solar systems deliver different household value?
Evidence used
- Half-hour household load where available
- A stated solar generation shape and system size
- Battery capacity, power, efficiency and reserve assumptions
- Plan-specific import and feed-in rates
Method
Match solar generation to household demand interval by interval. Send only the surplus to export or battery charging, then discharge the battery within its stated limits.
Decision lesson
Daytime household use can be more valuable than export. Battery value depends on when surplus is available and when the home would otherwise import from the grid.
Important limitation
The scenario is indicative. Weather, shading, degradation, operating controls, outages and future behaviour can change actual performance.
03Mains gasA winter gas bill should not be multiplied as if usage were flat
How can one recent bill support a more credible annual estimate?
Evidence used
- Exact first and last bill dates
- Gas consumption in MJ
- Whether gas is used for space heating
- The confirmed gas distributor where a postcode overlaps
Method
Allocate a dated bill to the selected heating or steady-use profile, annualise from that profile share, then price published seasonal periods and tariff blocks.
Decision lesson
A heating household usually consumes a larger share of annual gas in winter. A dated seasonal profile avoids treating a high winter bill as a typical period all year.
Important limitation
Weather, occupancy, thermostat settings and appliance changes can make the next year different from the bill period.
Trust boundary
What a real published case study would need
A future customer case study should be evidence-led, privacy-safe and clear about changes that are not caused by the energy decision itself.
- The household has explicitly consented to publication
- Names, addresses, NMI details, filenames and contact data are removed
- Plan names, tariff dates and source evidence are retained
- Before and after periods are long enough and genuinely comparable
- Weather, occupancy and appliance changes are disclosed
- Costs, savings and payback remain indicative with assumptions visible
Use your own evidence
The comparison tools keep electricity and gas separate, preserve material assumptions and show what should be confirmed before switching or buying equipment.
