When we talk about the future of the energy system, we tend to focus on big, macro challenges: grid infrastructure, decarbonisation, and security. But in my view, one of the most material changes happening right now is far more granular. It’s data. And specifically, metering data. Market-Wide Half-Hourly Settlement (MHHS) may sound like another complex regulatory programme, but stripped back, it’s a fundamental reset of how the energy market works — and it will have very real financial consequences for businesses.
We are moving to a 100 per cent data world
The biggest shift is simple: we are moving from a system which survives on incomplete, estimated data to one which demands 100 per cent actual data within seven days. That’s a radical departure from how the system has operated for decades. Historically, suppliers had over a year to collect most of the data they needed, and estimates filled the gaps. That model is gone. Under MHHS, every meter must deliver 48 readings per day, data must be complete, accurate and timely, and billing and settlement will rely on actual consumption, not estimates.
This isn’t just a technical upgrade. It’s what enables time-of-use tariffs, demand-side flexibility, load shifting and behavioural change. None of that works without high-quality data.
The reality: Most metering portfolios are not ready
Domestic metering — the ‘smart’ segment — is a car crash, with only 60 per cent of metering delivering sufficient quality data. Non-domestic metering — the ‘advanced’ segment — is better, but still only around 80 per cent complete. The target is 100 per cent. Even more concerning is the variation. Organisations that actively manage their metering can achieve 95 per cent+ data within a day. Given the average is 80 per cent, this means others are operating closer to 60 per cent. That gap is not academic. It directly translates into financial exposure.
The game changer: The supplier charges regime
MHHS introduces something we’ve never really had before: a material financial penalty for poor data performance. Suppliers are penalised for estimated data and rewarded for actual data. Money is redistributed between poor and strong performers. We’re talking about tens of millions of pounds moving between suppliers based purely on data quality performance. Ultimately, those costs will flow through to the customer. For large energy users, this could mean significant increases in energy costs and exposure that far exceeds the cost of fixing the underlying issue.
Data quality is now a commercial issue
Historically, metering has been treated as operational detail — something that ‘just works’ in the background. That mindset no longer holds. Under MHHS, data quality becomes a financial lever, metering becomes a controllable risk, and inaction becomes a cost driver. The organisations that treat metering as a strategic priority will materially outperform those that don’t.
What I would do now
There are three clear actions I would take immediately:
- Take control of your metering strategy. Do not assume your supplier is optimising for your outcome. You have the right to choose your own metering providers, choose your own data agents, and set your own performance standards. If you’re not actively managing this, you’re exposed.
- Demand measurable data performance. This isn’t about vague service levels anymore. You should be asking: What percentage of my meters are delivering data daily? What is my day +1 data completeness? How far am I from the 100 per cent target? If you can’t answer these questions, that’s the first issue to fix.
- Align commercial incentives. One of the biggest gaps in the market today is misaligned incentives. If your metering performs well, you should benefit from that performance. Creating a risk/reward structure around data performance ensures everyone is focused on the same outcome.
The bottom line
MHHS fundamentally changes the rules of the game. High-performing portfolios will benefit from accuracy, flexibility, and lower costs. Poorly performing portfolios will absorb penalties, inefficiencies, and missed opportunities. The difference between the two is not technology alone — it’s control, visibility, and accountability.
If I had to simplify this down to one message, it would be this: metering is no longer a back-office function — it is a strategic asset. The sooner organisations recognise that, take control and demand better outcomes, the better positioned they will be as the market completes this transition.