Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Daylight robbery

By John Richardson - posted Thursday, 14 November 2013


So, not only have NSW electricity consumers been obliged to pay for the creation of an expensive electricity generation system, they paid for the creation of a system that was significantly in excess of the state's real needs and now must pay to maintain it.

The fact is that electricity demand in NSW has dropped by more than 10% since its peak level of demand in 2008. Regardless of the reasons for this significant drop in demand, the industry, supported and encouraged by government, continued to pursue its mission to create a huge and unnecessary power generation capability in this state, even while demand was collapsing, which consumers not only paid for, but now have to pay even more to maintain.

And, of course, the more prices go up, the more demand will collapse as consumers are ultimately forced to cut their power usage, give up other essentials of life, such as food, or look for cheaper alternatives.

Advertisement

A vicious circle, compounded by the fact that today's neo-liberal politicians from both sides of the divide are no longer interested in running boring public services, that cost more and more to run, and are a constant source of voter dissatisfaction and criticism. Surely smarter to flog these assets off to a friendly "suit" & let them worry about the customers, leaving politicians to enjoy the kind of rewarding and stress free existence that they think they deserve.

Of course, the only problem with this strategy is that to persuade the "suit" that he/she should buy the asset, it must first be made attractive, meaning that the "suit" has to believe that he/she will make a motza by doing so.

The best way to do that, of course, is to pump-up the tyres of the enterprise as much as possible, demonstrating the real profit potential of owning a monopolistic money printing machine, that the desperate citizenry just can't do without!!

Of course, with demand falling, you have to pump-up those tyres more and more, with us lucky consumers providing the pump.

And so it is that NSW consumers have bravely endured the hardship of paying billons of dollars for an electricity generation system that they didn't need. Not only that, those same lucky consumers get to pay even more to maintain the monster that has been created, as well contributing to the excessive profits that politicians hope will eventually attract the interest of private sector investors, who will then buy this licence to print money & then charge us even more.

3.

Advertisement

In the circumstances, it would surely be unsurprising if the citizens of NSW formed the view that successive NSW governments have perpetrated a colossal fraud on the citizens of this state; that they have been running what amounts to be an extortion racket by dint of their monopoly control over an essential service.

To further underscore the unconscionable greed that has become the dominant feature of this sector of the Australian economy, the Australian Energy Market Commission (AEMC) recently released (Strategic Priorities for Energy Market Development 2012/3), calling for households who have invested in solar power generation systems to be charged an additional 'penalty tariff', to compensate electricity retailers for their alleged loss of revenue!!

The latest AEMC proposals are akin to asking consumers to pay compensation to oil companies for using less fuel, because the consumer has decided to take public transport or ride a push bike to work, rather than driving their car.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

4 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

John Richardson is in semi-retirement from the corporate world but continues to do some consulting work. In retirement he became involved in the grass roots campaign to secure justice for David Hicks and Mamdouh Habib and an inveterate writer to the letters pages and to politicians.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by John Richardson

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Article Tools
Comment 4 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy