I confess to being sceptical at the time, but last week Utility Week published some polling that asked the question of the public. Their conclusion was that there is some support for the idea but the discount needed to be substantial to get agreement and support dropped off as the discount levels fell.

Before talking about the principle of what is suggested, a word of warning about the polling data. It should be treated as “soft” in that it asks purely hypothetical scenarios and my hunch is that once a blackout has been experienced, then consumer sentiment may well have changed.

Looking at the idea, my first question is why suggest it? Is it concern over the cost-of-living pressures faced or more to do with managing the demand of clean power when supply is limited and/or prices high? Now my knowledge of teuthology is limited but I suspect it is the latter.

I suspect the polling did not state when these hypothetical blackouts would take place but the most likely time is when demand is historically high i.e. peak times (4pm to 7pm). Are we really going to believe that in our increasingly electrified and digital homes, consumers will stand for blackout when the kids come home from school; tea or dinner (depending on your background) is being cooked; homework done; getting home from work and slumping down in front of a blank screen TV? Anyone who genuinely thinks this is a clever idea needs to lie down.

And I haven’t even touched upon vulnerable consumers yet – imagine the horror stories that are likely to arise when hard-up vulnerable consumers gamble on low energy bills without factoring in the impact of no power. Frightening.

My overall worry in this debate is that our mollusc friends often act as outriders for some in Whitehall. I’m not sure that we should even be considering an energy system that is reliant upon rationing of power; blackouts because we haven’t got enough power is a sign of failure not a badge of honour.