This is a well written article and quite thought provoking. Overall, I can see that these are the sort of offers that would excite consumers and support them. However, I do have a number of practical observations. These are not meant to detract, but hopefully strengthen them by making them more practical. The comments are in no priority order, just how I thought of them!

• I agree that network charges should be separated from consumption and that this gives greater flexibility and potential cost savings. I don’t though believe this is an essential pre-requisite to making your ideas work.
• Selling flexibility sounds easy but there are a number of challenges that need to be addressed: there needs to be sufficient flexible loads to be able to sell: the majority of homes and particularly student flats, do not have many real loads they can shift. This is why residential demand management is currently pretty well non-existent. One key to this puzzle is energy storage which will provide the “cushion” needed to be able to flex supply and demand and to store excess energy when not required. Putting a battery in even a small home will provide the flexibility needed to help balance the grid.
Settlement – payment for demand management responses – is not simple. It will depend on a validation service, most likely built around smart meter data and based on the metering point: i.e. the whole home rather than an individual appliance. It is therefore hard to see how an appliance could be sold with 10 years electricity included.
• Buying your power as part of the rent or even from a district power service sounds great in theory but in practice it is sacrificing freedom of choice and is a gamble that the service you are tied in to is run efficiently. If it is not, as a number of recent reports have highlighted with new District Heating services, then this can become a nightmare. Signing up to a monopoly is not something I would recommend.

As I say, I am not trying to be negative, but to enhance and build on the propositions. To this end I would like to introduce Harry and the concept of the Hybrid Home – after all, in the interests of equality it should be a mixed gender team!

Harry has just bought an affordable Hybrid Home; affordable for two reasons. First it is less expensive to build as it does not have gas or district heating, which is expensive to install, but high levels of insulation and minimal electric heating. Secondly, the Hybrid Home’s energy bills are more than half that of an equivalent standard home making it also affordable to run. This is achieved in three ways: the home has its own battery to store off-peak electricity for use at peak times, the home also has solar panels and is able to use over 90% of the electricity generated as it can be stored in the battery in preference to off-peak electricity, and finally Harry is able to sell his home’s flexibility to an aggregator. It is what we call an “active home” – one that works dynamically with the grid.
Because Harry owns all the elements he is free to sell his flexibility to whoever he chooses – and switch if a better deal comes up. In fact, his preference for the moment has been to take a fixed price offer from the local Energy Service Company (ESCO). It is similar to paying a monthly debit only it is cheaper as the ESCO takes advantage of managing the flexibility in the background without impact on his daily usage, he can use up to 20% more than his normal consumption without penalty and if he uses less than normal he will be rebated pro-rata at the end of the contract! So, it is simple, low-cost and he doesn’t have to change his behaviour: now that’s peace of mind as well as affordability.
Simon Anderson