The CRU has today, 10 November 2025, published its Consultation Paper on the Detailed Design of the Gas Pay-As-You-Go Meter System Replacement Project. This Consultation Paper follows on from the CRU’s Decision Paper on the High-Level Design of Gas Pay-As-You-Go Meter System Replacement Project published on 10 June 2025. This Detailed Design Consultation Paper, and the Decision Paper which will follow, are required for the technical aspects of the replacement system to be decided upon ahead of GNI and gas suppliers progressing detailed design and implementation of the proposed PAYG solution with deployment due to begin in 2027. The CRU welcomes responses from all stakeholders to this Consultation Paper by 19 December 2025. The CRU expects to reach and publish a Decision on the Detailed Design of the Gas Pay-As-You-Go Meter System Replacement Project in Q1 2026.
Consultation Questions:
1. In the event that a meter with hybrid functionality is selected via GNI’s tendering process, do you agree with the CRU’s proposal that the meter should operate solely in ‘Thin/Connected only’ mode?
2. Do you have any feedback on the issues which may lead to customers not being able to avail of the new PAYG system? If so, do you have alternative suggestions on what could be done to help provide the new PAYG solution to all customers?
3. What are your thoughts on the proposed meter ‘wake-up’ time of 00:00 and the consequent timeline for customers receiving balance messaging? If you do not agree with this proposed meter ‘wake-up’ time, please provide reasons why not?
4. Do you agree with the CRU’s proposed backstop time for reconnection?
5. Do you have any other relevant views/suggestions?
6. At what intervals do you believe it is best to send messaging regarding the customer’s balance?
7. Do you agree with a balance estimate being included in the RBM should less than 10 days estimated usage (based on the customer’s previous consumption patterns) be remaining?
8. Do you agree with the CRU’s proposal not to mandate any specific channel of communication for the sending on RBMs?
9. Do you think the CRU’s proposal on supplier disconnection warning messaging is appropriate?
10. Do you agree that an appropriate back stop for customers to receive their updated balance is within 12 hours following the meter waking up?
11. Do you agree with the CRU’s proposals for customer receipt of top-up confirmation and updated balance following a vend, either in the event of a Thin or Hybrid meter solution?
12. What are your thoughts on the suitability of the above options to support customers who may struggle to read their balance on the new meter system?
13. Do you think the proposed approach of not allowing suppliers to disconnect customers for non-payment in the first 3-5 days after installation of a new meter is appropriate?
14. Do you agree with the CRU proposal that a web top-up facility should be mandatory along with the existing in-store top-up facility, with optional mobile top-up (via an app) and optional phone call top-up facilities?
15. Which of the options stated above do you believe is the most appropriate for updating customers on their balances in situations where only an estimated read is available?
16. Do you agree with the CRU’s proposal that disconnections should not be permitted on the basis of estimated meter reads?
17. Do you agree with the CRU’s proposal that the new meter remain in situ should a customer revert to billpay?
18. Do you agree with the CRU’s proposal that a single 24 hour meter read should be collected?
19. Do you think that granting suppliers the ability to alter the emergency credit threshold and emergency credit limit would be beneficial to customers who find themselves using emergency credit?
20. What are your thoughts on the potential introduction of maximum and minimum debt recovery ratios for gas PAYG customers?
21. Do you think the collection of emergency credit debt, legacy debt, and standing charges debt should be treated differently and thus be subjected to different recovery ratios?
22. Do you believe that vulnerable customers, customers in financial hardship, or any other customer cohort, should be prioritised when deploying the new meters?
23. Do you believe the new gas PAYG meters would be a suitable product for customers either on, or eligible to be on, the vulnerable customer register? If not, do you think these customers should be encouraged to a billpay solution?
Gas PAYG Meter System Replacement Project: Consultation on the Detailed Design
Primary tabs
The CRU has today, 10 November 2025, published its Consultation Paper on the Detailed Design of the Gas Pay-As-You-Go Meter System Replacement Project. This Consultation Paper follows on from the CRU’s Decision Paper on the High-Level Design of Gas Pay-As-You-Go Meter System Replacement Project published on 10 June 2025. This Detailed Design Consultation Paper, and the Decision Paper which will follow, are required for the technical aspects of the replacement system to be decided upon ahead of GNI and gas suppliers progressing detailed design and implementation of the proposed PAYG solution with deployment due to begin in 2027. The CRU welcomes responses from all stakeholders to this Consultation Paper by 19 December 2025. The CRU expects to reach and publish a Decision on the Detailed Design of the Gas Pay-As-You-Go Meter System Replacement Project in Q1 2026.
Consultation Questions:
1. In the event that a meter with hybrid functionality is selected via GNI’s tendering process, do you agree with the CRU’s proposal that the meter should operate solely in ‘Thin/Connected only’ mode?
2. Do you have any feedback on the issues which may lead to customers not being able to avail of the new PAYG system? If so, do you have alternative suggestions on what could be done to help provide the new PAYG solution to all customers?
3. What are your thoughts on the proposed meter ‘wake-up’ time of 00:00 and the consequent timeline for customers receiving balance messaging? If you do not agree with this proposed meter ‘wake-up’ time, please provide reasons why not?
4. Do you agree with the CRU’s proposed backstop time for reconnection?
5. Do you have any other relevant views/suggestions?
6. At what intervals do you believe it is best to send messaging regarding the customer’s balance?
7. Do you agree with a balance estimate being included in the RBM should less than 10 days estimated usage (based on the customer’s previous consumption patterns) be remaining?
8. Do you agree with the CRU’s proposal not to mandate any specific channel of communication for the sending on RBMs?
9. Do you think the CRU’s proposal on supplier disconnection warning messaging is appropriate?
10. Do you agree that an appropriate back stop for customers to receive their updated balance is within 12 hours following the meter waking up?
11. Do you agree with the CRU’s proposals for customer receipt of top-up confirmation and updated balance following a vend, either in the event of a Thin or Hybrid meter solution?
12. What are your thoughts on the suitability of the above options to support customers who may struggle to read their balance on the new meter system?
13. Do you think the proposed approach of not allowing suppliers to disconnect customers for non-payment in the first 3-5 days after installation of a new meter is appropriate?
14. Do you agree with the CRU proposal that a web top-up facility should be mandatory along with the existing in-store top-up facility, with optional mobile top-up (via an app) and optional phone call top-up facilities?
15. Which of the options stated above do you believe is the most appropriate for updating customers on their balances in situations where only an estimated read is available?
16. Do you agree with the CRU’s proposal that disconnections should not be permitted on the basis of estimated meter reads?
17. Do you agree with the CRU’s proposal that the new meter remain in situ should a customer revert to billpay?
18. Do you agree with the CRU’s proposal that a single 24 hour meter read should be collected?
19. Do you think that granting suppliers the ability to alter the emergency credit threshold and emergency credit limit would be beneficial to customers who find themselves using emergency credit?
20. What are your thoughts on the potential introduction of maximum and minimum debt recovery ratios for gas PAYG customers?
21. Do you think the collection of emergency credit debt, legacy debt, and standing charges debt should be treated differently and thus be subjected to different recovery ratios?
22. Do you believe that vulnerable customers, customers in financial hardship, or any other customer cohort, should be prioritised when deploying the new meters?
23. Do you believe the new gas PAYG meters would be a suitable product for customers either on, or eligible to be on, the vulnerable customer register? If not, do you think these customers should be encouraged to a billpay solution?
Share
Themes
Materials