Google
 

Aardvark Daily

New Zealand's longest-running online daily news and commentary publication, now in its 24th year. The opinion pieces presented here are not purported to be fact but reasonable effort is made to ensure accuracy.

Content copyright © 1995 - 2018 to Bruce Simpson (aka Aardvark), the logo was kindly created for Aardvark Daily by the folks at aardvark.co.uk



Please visit the sponsor!
Please visit the sponsor!

A rip-off?

26 June 2018

The wiring, switchgear and transformers that carry our reticulated electricity around the country are an essential part of the nation's infrastructure.

This gear is owned by a variety of power companies who build the cost of provisioning and maintaining this gear into the monthly bill that we get as consumers.

Or at least that's how it should work... but does it?

Personally, I'm kind of shocked at how power companies are ignoring the rules of good business and seemingly ripping excessive profits out of their revenues, instead of setting aside money for expansion and maintenance.

We're told that power costs must rise to pay for new generation capacity -- but why?

Surely good management would, as suggested above, have already built the cost of future expansion into the cost-structure of the business -- BEFORE extracting profits and bonuses for shareholders and well-paid executives.

And, as if to prove just how whacko the current situation is, I read this story in Stuff yesterday.

Hang on a damned cotton-picking minute!

Vector want a property owner to pay over $50,000 in order to upgrade a transformer so that he can connect a handful of town-houses to the existing power feed.

So will the developer own the transformer he's paying for?

Of course not... although he will be paying for it, Vector will own it and they'll continue to charge him for its use.

Does this sound fair?

Not to me.

Surely, if the developer is going to be paying for the transformer then he should own it and he should be charging Vector for its use -- especially when you consider that the upgrade will provide sufficient additional capacity to service a raft of other houses in the area.

Isn't this a little bit like buying a car, only to be told that you'll also have to pay for a workshop to be built in your town in order that the vehicle can be serviced regularly -- but that the workshop will belong to the car company and will also be used to service other people's cars (even though they won't have to pay for it to be built)?

Expecting customers to pay for infrastructure that you then claim ownership of and then have the nerve to charge them an ongoing amount for use is massively double-dipping and ought to be illegal.

However, as we well know, the "deregulated" electricity industry (thanks Max Bradford) has fulfilled none of the promises of: lower prices, increased competition and better service that were bandied about by the politicians who made this smart move.

Is it any wonder that so many people are now going "off grid" when faced with connection fees that may be as much (or more) than the cost of such generation equipment?

Are the power companies shooting themselves in the feet by demanding that customers pay for the infrastructure which should be part of the company's own cost structure?

I wonder if there's a potential business opportunity here for small, fast-moving companies to offer an alternative to the big power company blackmail?

Think about it... for the $50K that vector are demanding, an innovative startup could probably deliver a PVA solution with wind and a standby grid connection -- the only catch being a fixed 5-year contract or something similar.

Yeah, there are all the issues associated with the unreliability of renewable generation and the maintenance of a growing number of small "micro-generation stations" but I'm thinking that a company which was willing to run at a loss for the next five years or so could by some serious position within the renewable marketplace and cement a niche that could, within a decade, become very significant in terms of profit.

Or maybe not.

Anyway... if I was building a new house and the power company wanted to sting me $50K for gear that *they* would own, I'd tell them to stick that where the sun never shines and instead I'd fork out for an off-grid solution -- even if it cost twice as much.

How do readers feel?

Is this ridiculous situation where power companies are so badly run that they force customers to buy the infrastructure without any ownership rights simply unacceptable?

Please visit the sponsor!
Please visit the sponsor!

Have your say in the Aardvark Forums.

PERMALINK to this column


Rank This Aardvark Page

 

Change Font

Sci-Tech headlines

 


Features:

Beware The Alternative Energy Scammers

The Great "Run Your Car On Water" Scam

 

Recent Columns

Features over robustness?
I do a lot of video editing... I have to in order to keep my two YouTube channels chugging along...

It's that time again!
It's less than six weeks to Christmas...

Seriously, who designed this?
The hot news on the wires this morning is the unexpected and unauthorised temporary routing of Google traffic via China...

NatRad gives up on real news
As I'm sure all regular readers of this column are aware, I am not particularly impressed with the objectivity or performance of today's mainstream media...

Tech giants consolidate their power
Two of the biggest names on the Internet are Amazon and Apple...

Thanks for borrowing our software
An unknown (but seemingly quite large) number of Windows 10 Pro users have had problems over the past 24 hours...

Meccano jumps the shark?
Who remembers the days of Meccano?...

Cores vs clock speed
There's a very real battle going on between Intel and AMD...

It cost how much?
Yesterday I bought a new disk drive...

In 10 years the world will change forever
Nuclear fusion is still just 10 years away...

The strangest thing
I've written a few columns on helium before, because it's a damned interesting element and it is becoming increasingly precious...