Use less electricity and water

[Roverlord off road spares]

After just paying my Electricity bill, I looked at some of the saving tips but wondered.
If I owned a utility company like Electricity for example. I sell the electricity, I make money on electricity, so the more electricity I sell, the more $$$ I receive. So why would I tell my customers to use less :confused: as if people used less then I earn less.

[vnx205]

The way you would maximise your profits would be to get people to use less, but charge more per unit of electricity.

That way you get to make the same amount of money or more and you don't have to spend money upgrading the capacity of the delivery system.

That makes it a win-win situation for you as the provider but offers no real benefit to the consumer.

[CraigE]

This is the issue now in WA. Electrickery companies were moaning a few years back that they could not keep up with demand and would either need new power generation facilities an or people to switch to Solar. So we go and get solar so now they are moaning that they are not making enough profit so now want to charge more for supply irrelevant of use. Talk about cake and eat it too. Then any extra we put in during the day is not credited as units for us to use at night, but they pay 8 cents per unit and then sell it back to us at 23 c per unit at night. Talk about double standards and double dipping.
If they cannot make a profit maybe they need to look at their structure.

[ugu80]

About four or five years ago I was watching an interview with the CEO of one of the electricity companies (Origin, I think) and he stated quite simply that if people used less electricity then the electricity companies would raise the price of supply to maintain profitability. Win - win situation for them, lose - lose for us.

[crash]

After just paying my Electricity bill, I looked at some of the saving tips but wondered.
If I owned a utility company like Electricity for example. I sell the electricity, I make money on electricity, so the more electricity I sell, the more $$$ I receive. So why would I tell my customers to use less :confused: as if people used less then I earn less.
I had a similar experience a few years ago by a bank teller advising me that I would be better off using internet banking or the ATM's provided. I walked away thinking if people stopped coming into the bank you will not have a job.

[bee utey]

Energy saving tips cost the retailers virtually nothing to print, and most people already use as little or as much as they ever will. It's simply "greenwashing" and hides their true purpose of ripping everyone off.

Once electricity costs more to supply than the cost of going off grid and many people disconnect from the system, energy retailers will demand that you still pay for the privilege of having wires running past your gate.

[CraigE]

Energy saving tips cost the retailers virtually nothing to print, and most people already use as little or as much as they ever will. It's simply "greenwashing" and hides their true purpose of ripping everyone off.

Once electricity costs more to supply than the cost of going off grid and many people disconnect from the system, energy retailers will demand that you still pay for the privilege of having wires running past your gate.

Already happens in some of the newer sub divisions, once you own the block of land you must pay whether connected or not. Same with sewerage (deep drainage) and water rates.

[rover-56]

Energy saving tips cost the retailers virtually nothing to print, and most people already use as little or as much as they ever will. It's simply "greenwashing" and hides their true purpose of ripping everyone off.

Once electricity costs more to supply than the cost of going off grid and many people disconnect from the system, energy retailers will demand that you still pay for the privilege of having wires running past your gate.

That's certainly true of the sewerage system (which I don't need to use) I am still paying for the service being there on the street.

Democracy at work:mad:

Terry

[austastar]

Hi,
Yep, it happened in the States years ago, oil shortage caused brown outs and suppliers were installing free wood heaters for customers.
Yanks, being yanks, went with the flow and started getting energy efficient to the point where not enough juice was going through the meters to make a profit.

Massive power price increases resulted.

cheers

[korg20000bc]

The situation here with our water company is that they charge a huge amount for maintaining service to the property (What they do for that money is anyone's guess).
They charge very little for water so no matter what you do to save water you cannot reduce your bill to any decent level.

It gives me the poops.

[Mick_Marsh]

The situation here with our water company is that they charge a huge amount for maintaining service to the property (What they do for that money is anyone's guess).
They charge very little for water so no matter what you do to save water you cannot reduce your bill to any decent level.

It gives me the poops.
They call that "User Pays".

[d2dave]

About four or five years ago I was watching an interview with the CEO of one of the electricity companies (Origin, I think) and he stated quite simply that if people used less electricity then the electricity companies would raise the price of supply to maintain profitability. Win - win situation for them, lose - lose for us.

Yep. Heard/read exactly the same thing, although I reckon it was more like about three years ago.

[DiscoMick]

State-owned electricity generators/distributors get cheaper financing because they are government entities, charge market rates for electricity, and then the resulting profits are either reinvested into infrastructure or, more often, paid to the state governments as dividends.
So, rising electricity prices are mostly a form of hidden state government tax on consumers. The carbon tax was only about 9% of rises of about 50% over the last five years, on average. Therefore, state governments bias subsidies for renewable electricity sources such as solar and wind to discourage consumers from disconnecting from the electricity grid, because they want to keep charging consumers.
If governments acted in the best interests of consumers first, before the profits of electricity companies and the dividends to state budgets, then more people would go fully solar I predict, as the cost is rapidly falling.

[Ausfree]

The whole thing with electricity companies, is they are trying to shift the burden of updating equipment onto the consumer. You put solar panels on your roof and you are spending money on infrastructure that should be part of the electricity companies normal expense in upgrading plant and equipment.

That means they (in the short term) don't have to spend as much on infrastructure improvement and will be reaping record profits. Naturally as more and more consumers install solar panels, usage will drop and the electricity companies increase prices in an effort to maintain their profit margins.

This goes in a circle and eventually something has to give. Either everybody is self contained in electricity generation and no need for major suppliers or the Government screams "enough" and makes it impractical for people to install solar panels.

Of cause, I can't see this situation happening but if things keep going, it is a logical conclusion to make.

[DiscoMick]

Govenments are addicted to the dividends from their electricity companies so they won't send them broke by encouraging people to disconnect from the grid.

[clive22]

In Vic it's a little bit more separated than that.
Firstly it's all privatised now with three main bodies
The suppliers (generators owners of Loy yang, Hazelwood and yallourn) the network operators SP Ausnet and the retailers origin, et al

As far as I can understand the prices have been driven up, mainly, by the network operators claiming that the network needs upgrading to avoid brown outs. The conditions of original private is that they get a set return and the value of the assets poles, wires, transformers, etc.

If they can get a requirement to upgrade the network past the national regulator then they receive a greater amount in the fixed network component of your retail energy bill. The incentive is then to "gold plate" (over invest)the network as quite simply they get a greater guaranteed return as the supply charge is fixed per consumer and the no of consumers rises in line with no buildings.

It is this that has driven much of the price increases plus the much more political carbon tax, but less significant in money terms.

It's all up to the regulator website below. I have read they have been weak in granting the increases, 'cause they are too close to who they are regulating.

The regulators website
http://www.aer.gov.au/node/


Clive

[rover-56]

If they can get a requirement to upgrade the network past the national regulator then they receive a greater amount in the fixed network component of your retail energy bill. The incentive is then to "gold plate" (over invest)the network as quite simply they get a greater guaranteed return as the supply charge is fixed per consumer and the no of consumers rises in line with no buildings.
Clive

There was a story on ABC tv recently, on 4 Corners, describing exactly that. Objectors to a new power line thru their valley somewhere in NSW proved the power companies data was faked. They won their case I think.

Terry

[jimr1]

Like many in Vic a smart meter was fitted , that I had to pay for , but do not own . I then had solar panels fitted , and was told I had to get the system hooked up to the grid , through the smart meter , that had to be done by the power company . The cost to hook me up was $180.00 It took about 20 mins , plus $50.oo adnim charge on top of that . What happened to the .When we sell off our utilities we will be better off because there will be greater competition ..

[DiscoMick]

A friend installed stand alone solar power, including a battery bank, to his rural house for $19k, which was still less than the cost of connecting to the grid, as the house is isolated. No more power bills and his battery bank is always fully recharged by mid-morning, no matter how much power he uses or how cloudy is the weather. I'm rather envious.

[Lotz-A-Landies]

Energy saving tips cost the retailers virtually nothing to print, and most people already use as little or as much as they ever will. It's simply "greenwashing" and hides their true purpose of ripping everyone off.

Once electricity costs more to supply than the cost of going off grid and many people disconnect from the system, energy retailers will demand that you still pay for the privilege of having wires running past your gate.This is exactly what happened with the MWS&DB in Sydney (water utility company) in the 1950s and 1960s, many houses in the metro area ran on tank water when they ran the water mains past a house the householder had to connect to the mains, it was illegal to keep the tank. Was sold as a public health measure.

They built no Sydney dams after the 1960s (the Tallowa was not considered a Sydney supply dam, but an emergency reserve). When the total supply was hovering around 30% they then encouraged people to put in water tanks. Apparently water tanks are not a health risk in the new millennium.

The other issue is that energy supply companies, are now considering an annual surcharge for solar powered houses to connect to the grid. So not only will they only pay 4c for solar energy fed into the grid and 33c to get it out they will be charging you extra for power if you have panels compared to the neighbour who doesnt.

[CraigE]

Like many in Vic a smart meter was fitted , that I had to pay for , but do not own . I then had solar panels fitted , and was told I had to get the system hooked up to the grid , through the smart meter , that had to be done by the power company . The cost to hook me up was $180.00 It took about 20 mins , plus $50.oo adnim charge on top of that . What happened to the .When we sell off our utilities we will be better off because there will be greater competition ..

Greater competition rubbish. It was and is all about corrupt govts selling assets to their mates and relies to make squillions and then work as consultants to them once their political careers are over at unrealistic fees. Why else would they sell services and still have to pay for the infrastructure and any shortfalls. They always knew prices would rise and they basically condoned it.

[jimr1]

I've asked a few people this question . Who owns the coal that is used by the power stations in Victoria . I have heard that there is enough there for the next 200years . So if It was sold off how much did It go for , and to whom ? Someone must own It ? ,and there not going to give It away , So how do you put a value on coal a hundred years from now ? If coal costs so much a ton , and there are millions of tons ,What would be worth at a price not yet fixed ?

[JDNSW]

I've asked a few people this question . Who owns the coal that is used by the power stations in Victoria . I have heard that there is enough there for the next 200years . So if It was sold off how much did It go for , and to whom ? Someone must own It ? ,and there not going to give It away , So how do you put a value on coal a hundred years from now ? If coal costs so much a ton , and there are millions of tons ,What would be worth at a price not yet fixed ?
In Australia coal (and other minerals) belong to the crown*, i.e. the State Government. Because, as you say, there are vast resources of coal, it has very little intrinsic value, which is why it is so widely used for power generation - most of the "cost" of the coal to the power company is the mining cost; plus a royalty to the state government, which effectively sells the coal to the power company.

*I think there are still a few small areas in NSW where very early land grants alienated minerals as well as surface rights, although most of these were re-acquired by the state about fifty years ago.

John

[DiscoMick]

Yep, everything below the surface is owned by the Crown. There is a fixed depth - I think it's 6cm from memory, but that may not be correct. So, for example, property owners don't own the minerals or groundwater, the Crown does. So, property owners are actually selling the right to access the resources, not the resources themselves.
Some farmers get very narky about this and carry on with 'Lock the Gate' protests, but actualy they're on shaky ground legally. Other landowners are much smarter and queue up to sell their access rights to the highest bidder to earn cash to invest in improving their properties.
Back on solar, some 'solar rights' exist in relation to views I understand, so property owners should have the right to access solar to generate energy. I hope local governments are never allowed to force landowners to connect to services they don't want. Consmer rights should include the right NOT to be forced to consume.

[Ausfree]

The other issue is that energy supply companies, are now considering an annual surcharge for solar powered houses to connect to the grid. So not only will they only pay 4c for solar energy fed into the grid and 33c to get it out they will be charging you extra for power if you have panels compared to the neighbour who doesnt.

This reinforces what I was trying to say in post#14."They" being the power companies and the government are NOT going to lose out.

[Ralph1Malph]

This is exactly what happened with the MWS&DB in Sydney (water utility company) in the 1950s and 1960s, many houses in the metro area ran on tank water when they ran the water mains past a house the householder had to connect to the mains,.

It seems unjust but explained another way:

Assume (for the purposes of story telling ;)) that it costs $1000 p/m to install water mains up a 1 km long street. The poor guy at the far end decides he would like mains water - the first house in the street to do so. The cost to him is $1M. Of course he can't pay. The next guy to connect doesn't have to pay anything, coz the first guy did.
A far more equitable model is to ask everyone to pay $1000 per meter frontage. This is the model used by the NBN and just about every utility developer and council.

Another model, sometimes used in the US, is to temporarily assign 'ownership' of the pipe to the original purchaser (or more usually the developer or builder), who then 'subcharges' a commensurate fee to everyone who subsequently wants to be connected. Once costs are recouped, the pipe reverts to public ownership or in most US cases, the utility who financed it.
This is good for those who don't want connection, but it can mean 25 years down the track when that person moves, the new tenent is up for mega bucks.

Cheers
Ralph

[Phil HH]

In NSW, electricity supply used to be a public service. The Electricity Commission (who I did my time with) generated, and the County Councils (one of which I joined 35 years ago) distributed. They acquired assets, and financed their own infrastructure; They were a bit top heavy employee-wise, but this provided a valuable service to our society by providing stable employment.

Then, in the '80s, the economic gurus in the state government got hold of the system and decided to make it conform to their economic model. The people that I worked for were told that they didn't have an acceptable level of debt (i.e. not enough). Assets were virtually thrown away, accumulated spare parts were literally dumped, and the annual profits were allocated to the coffers of the State government. This "dividend" was usually at least $100 million per year. One year it was $150 million.

Parts of the system were then subsequently sold off, taking a short-term profit but irreversibly squandering assets belonging to the people of the state. The new owners are understandably profit-driven, and so the consumers will suffer. The villain of the piece, however, is the State Government, which has gradually transformed the electricity supply industry from a benign entity into a rapacious predator. It will come as no surprise that we have been betrayed by politicians and high-level public servants.

[Lotz-A-Landies]

It seems unjust but explained another way:

Assume (for the purposes of story telling ;)) that it costs $1000 p/m to install water mains up a 1 km long street. ....That still doesn't justify the making water tanks illegal. In a democratic society one should be free to choose to have flurodated mains water or unflurodated tank water. Even if there is a charge for the mains past the front door.

It is also not universal, one of my work colleagues bought a rural block outside Maroulan for her weekends. It was unpowered and at the end of a lane. She spoke to her neighbours, all wanted mains power but none would share the cost of the poles and wires. They figured she would pay for the poles and wires and they could merely connect later. She went solar/batteries 20 years before it was common.

[DiscoMick]

Here's a good story about how state governments are laughing all the way to the bank about electricity prices, while trying to blame solar and carbon tax when its actually their own actions. And the federal government is raking in lots of money from the GST on higher power prices.

Who Really Profits From Power Bill Increases In Queensland? : Renewable Energy News : (http://www.energymatters.com.au/index.php'main_page=news_article&article_id=3787)

[Mick_Marsh]

I hope local governments are never allowed to force landowners to connect to services they don't want. Consmer rights should include the right NOT to be forced to consume.
Try and disconnect from water and sewerage.