Thursday 2nd of May 2024

the light on the hill .....

the light on the hill .....

Electricity companies are refusing to tell struggling families and businesses exactly how much the carbon tax will add to their power bills.

They have rejected state government demands for transparency on power prices, claiming it is impossible to provide accurate itemised billing to every home and that it would put them squarely in the sights of the ACCC.

However, the O'Farrell government will this week announce its intention to force all energy retailers to provide an "averaged" carbon tax liability on every consumer's bill starting from July 1.

Federal Treasury estimated electricity prices will increase by up to 10 per cent when the tax kicks in on July 1.

It has emerged taxpayers will be forced to bankroll the Gillard government's own $45 million carbon tax bill.

The federal government's power bills, which cover the majority of departments and agencies, totalled more than $450 million in the last financial year, according to documents obtained by The Daily Telegraph. The expected carbon tax bill for next year for the government sector is estimated to total $45,655,915.

Premier Barry O'Farrell and newly elected Queensland Premier Campbell Newman have both called for greater transparency on the impact of the carbon tax on power bills.

The Gillard government, concerned about a public backlash to the tax, is also negotiating with energy companies to provide households with a glossy pamphlet as part of their monthly bill.

But none of the three largest energy companies - AGL, Origin and TRUenergy - will commit to itemised billing for customers after July 1.

The power companies fear that itemised power bills, based on estimates of the affect of the carbon tax, may inadvertently inflate bills and lead to action from the ACCC.

ACCC chairman Rod Sims has warned any price gouging from the carbon tax will attract heavy fines. Opposition Leader Tony Abbott has threatened to introduce legislation into parliament if power bills do not show the full cost of a carbon tax.

Mr Abbott has written to Ms Gillard demanding the government "ensure the carbon tax's impact is fully transparent". "The Coalition is concerned that the government is trying to hide the true costs of the carbon tax from Australian households and business," Mr Abbott wrote.

Mr Abbott said total transparency "can only be achieved by itemising the carbon tax as a separate charge in the customer's account - thereby showing the impact that the carbon tax has on the total amount payable."

Acting Greens leader Christine Milne said greater transparency on energy bills "can only be a good thing".

But she said it was important that energy bills "set out how much the community is getting back through lower taxes, higher support payments and, of course, cleaner air and a safer climate".

Businesses are also demanding their bills be itemised.

Energy Users Association of Australia executive director Roman Domanski said: "We would welcome a requirement that the carbon tax has to be itemised so that customers can see how much is being passed on to them."

But he said the EUAA "would prefer that companies do it themselves" rather than have it forced on them by government. "There is so much uncertainty (about the effects of the carbon tax) out there that needs to be resolved," Mr Domanski said.

Major energy companies last night would not commit to itemised billing. Origin Energy said it was "committed to clearly advising our customers about the reasons for any price increase to help them better understand and ultimately manage their energy costs."

AGL said it was working on processes to ensure "the uplift in prices is fair and reasonable for our customers".

Australian Families In The Dark On Real Cost Of Carbon Tax

advert confusing the issue...

 

An advertising campaign showing a carbon tax collector demanding money from a frail pensioner has been referred to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC).

Total Environment Centre director Jeff Angel says a complaint has been lodged against the New South Wales company Energy Watch, a group that acts as an energy broker for consumers and business.

Read the full complaint here.

The advertising has been run on television, online and on outdoor billboards.

In July last year the Government gave the ACCC a $12.8 million grant to deal with false and misleading claims about price rises under the carbon tax.

And new national consumer laws in force since January last year specify fines of up to $1.1 million per contravention.

The ACCC has been told the advertisement may be misleading because it blames rising electricity prices on the carbon tax.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-03-30/complaint-lodged-against-carbon-tax-ads/3922126?WT.svl=news2

 

the sting .....

Higher costs and worsening inefficiency have been problems since privatisation began in the 1990s and no end is in sight.

'Who's using the hot water?!'' You can often hear that shout from someone trying to have a shower while someone else in the house is trying to do the dishes. The reason is simple; most houses don't install multiple hot water systems to ensure that everyone in the house can simultaneously use as much hot water as they want.

It is of course possible to design a house's plumbing to ensure ever-present hot water, it's just that it would be quite expensive. Most families, conscious as they claim to be about the cost of living, seem happy to suffer the odd inconvenience in exchange for cheaper homes and cheaper electricity bills.

But the exact opposite is, we are told, the case when it comes to designing our electricity grid. Indeed, we learnt this week that we spent $11 billion installing electricity poles and wires that are only used 100 hours a year. That's less than two hours per week.

The ''problem'' is that on really hot days everyone with an air conditioner wants to use it at the same time. Similarly, those who can afford a swimming pool are probably lounging in it, with the pool filter running.

While we don't build public hospitals that can cope with peak demand in winter and we don't build public transport systems that can cope with peak loads in the morning it seems unchallengeable that we must build an electricity distribution grid that can cope with peak demand.

Why the difference in approach? The owners of the poles and wires would argue it is because nobody likes blackouts, and that is indeed the case. But what they don't like to talk about is all of the money they make by overinvesting in excess distribution capacity. That is, the more wires they string up the more money they make, whether we need them or not.

To explain this absurd situation a little bit of history is required.

While we talk a lot about ''competition'' in the electricity sector in reality the whole ''market'' was invented by government when publicly built and owned electricity assets were variously broken up, privatised and corporatised in the mid-1990s. The first-year economics textbooks on which the ''restructuring'' was based confidently predicted that the result of ''increased competition'' would be lower prices and better service. Whoops.

What has actually happened ever since ''competition'' was introduced is that prices have risen rapidly, the privatised competitors started to buy each other up, and the ability to efficiently plan the electricity industry has been significantly reduced.

The clearest evidence that something is deeply wrong with the industry is that just as we are about to introduce a carbon price to help reduce the demand for electricity there are plans to spend billions on new poles and wires to cope with surging demand. How can this be?

The problem is that while the amount of energy used in homes has been falling, the ''peak demand'', particularly on hot days, has been rising rapidly as more homes install air conditioning and homes with air conditioning install more of it and use it to cool more of their house. Building an electricity grid that is big enough to deal with this ''peak load'' is a very expensive exercise, but it's also a very profitable exercise for all segments of the electricity industry.

The most recognisable segment of the electricity industry comprises the ''retailers''. They are the companies that individual households deal with. They are the ones who send us a bill, and like all retailers they like it when we buy lots of their product. Indeed, most electricity retailers do helpful things like sell air conditioners and even offer to install them for you.

The next most recognisable segment of the electricity industry is made up of the generators that burn the coal to make the vast majority of Australia's electricity. They like people installing air conditioners too. It boosts demand for their product but also, thanks to the way governments designed the electricity market, they make huge profits on the peak demand days when the price of the electricity they sell goes through the roof. Just as umbrellas get more expensive on rainy days, so too does electricity on a hot day. These peak hours are incredibly profitable. It has been estimated that about one-quarter of the electricity sector's revenues come from just 36 hours of peak production a year.

And finally, the most visible but least recognisable part of the electricity industry consists of the distributors. We see the poles and wires everywhere but we never get a bill from them and probably don't think too much about who pays for them. It's simple: we do. The electricity distributors who own the poles and wires are effectively running a tollway for electrons. The more energy that passes through the wires, the more money they make. Not surprisingly, they like people buying lots of air conditioners as well. It gets worse, though. Because it would be silly to have competing poles and wires running down every street the distribution sector is run as a regulated monopoly. What that means is that they are guaranteed a fixed level of profit on every pole they install. The result of the 1990s experiment in creating competition in the Australian electricity industry is a complete mess. We have created incentives for all of the industry sectors to behave in ways that are inconsistent with the goals of providing low-cost energy and energy efficiency.

The worst part about it is that, despite all the concern about the potential impact of the carbon price on electricity prices, the inefficiency of the industry is a far bigger problem.

And the lowest-income earners who are the least likely to have air conditioners or pool pumps are picking up far more than their fair share of the cost. .

Electricity Industry Shockers

stealing your wallet kilowatts...

 

POWER company bosses and state governments, quietly drawing annual dividends from their utilities, have done well from rising electricity prices in recent years. But the other big winners have been foreign multinationals.

A BusinessDay investigation into executive remuneration found that frontline pay at the likes of foreign-owned SP AusNet and Spark Infrastructure has been modest when compared with the dazzling salaries at energy retailers AGL and Origin Energy.

In Victoria, where the electricity sector has been privatised, it is foreign multinationals that have been the big beneficiaries via a slew of complex management fees which are paid back to related companies in Hong Kong and Singapore.

Spark Infrastructure and SP AusNet have been engineered to pay management fees to external managers, although Spark paid its Hong Kong parent, CKI, $51.5 million earlier this year to buy back its own management and clean up what had been a quintuple-stapled security structure.

In the case of transmission and distribution group SP AusNet, its parent, Singapore Power, was paid $90 million last year in assorted fees and related party payments. But the devil in the financial detail is something of a revelation.

The number one culprit for rising electricity prices - accounting for 40 per cent of the total increase - has been spending on transmission and distribution. As the network providers earn a ''regulated return'' on their asset bases, there has been an incentive for them to overspend, or ''gold-plate'' their networks.

Lurking in the catacombs of SP AusNet's public documents are two telling disclosures. One, Singapore Power is entitled to 1 per cent of SP AusNet's EBITDA (earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation). In this, it ranks ahead of SP's other unit holders.

Two, the parent company is entitled to a fee equating to about 1 per cent of capital expenditure. A foreign company, in other words, has provided an incentive for Victoria's transmission provider to gold-plate its network - the more it spends the more it earns, and the more the government of Singapore benefits because it owns Singapore Power.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/foreign-multinationals-happily-plugged-into-our-energy-grid-20120930-26tjc.html#ixzz27zaQQG9p

All this gouging of course has nothing to do with the "carbon tax"... All it shows is capitalism at it's worse... And capitalism is the Liberals (conservatives) god of "free market"...