Classic ESB ads of the 80s

gizmo555 wrote: »

Never did understand why a monopoly provider of an essential service felt the need to incur the cost of producing and broadcasting these ads, which presumably was ultimately passed on to the consumer. It's not as though we had anywhere else to go for our electricity at the time. Classic waste of money if you ask me.

I agree, but I still voted

That Aer Lingus ad brought back happy memories, especially of traveling to the States in one of their 747s. I wish they still had some in their fleet.

And the ESB ads remind me of the time when we had some of the cheapest electricity in Europe despite the disadvantages this country has on the electricity front: an island nation not connected to the European grid, no access to nuclear power (France generates more than 70% of its electricity from nuclear and has the cheapest electricity in Europe), no appreciable indigenous fuel source (such as the Nordic countries with their significant hydro resources) etc.

Yes, the ESB was a monopoly but it was very well managed and had a cost cutting ethos and practice that was the envy of many private companies. It was - and is - the jewel in the crown of the semi-state sector and has never had to seek a handout from the tax payer.

Then came regulation.

Is regulation there to reduce prices to customers?

No.

It is there to promote competition. Well, competition Irish style, not *real* competition.

From day one, the CER - the Commission for Energy Regulation - has helped to INCREASE prices in the interests of bringing "competitors" into the electricity arena. It was only last year for instance that the price of domestic electricity had risen enough to attract Bord Gais and Airtricity.

At the same time, while those companies have undercut the ESB's prices, the ESB is not allowed by the CER to compete with them and have to keep their prices higher.

It's a joke.

I've heard it said that domestic customers are paying up to 60% more for electricity now as a direct result of "competition" and the whole regulatory framework that underpins it. I understand for example that the ESB had to spend multiples of millions upgrading their IT systems as their perfectly good legacy system was not compatible with regulatory requirements. All these costs are passed on to individual customers.

The CER is an expensive behemoth staffed with a raft of highly paid individuals whose mission in life is the promotion of "competition" and the ticking of Brussels generated boxes.

If they were seriously concerned with the impact of high prices on individual customers they would allow ESB to compete NOW. But no, they are overseeing the steady reduction of ESB's domestic customer base with profitable customers going to Bord Gais and Airtricity.

The CER clearly doesn't care a fig for those customers whose circumstances are such that they cannot exercise the option of going to other suppliers. Such customers include the long-term unemployed, the unbanked, those in financial difficulties: those who the other suppliers are not interested in obtaining. Those customers would benefit the most from a price reduction by the ESB but ... CER will not allow it!

Bord Gais and Airtricity have cherry picked customers from the ESB with the full sanction of the CER. When ESB is eventually allowed to compete it will have a significantly higher proportion of unprofitable and high cost to serve customers than its competitors and thus will find it more difficult to offer attractive price offerings to all customers.

This is not fair. It is anti-customer and it is contrary to true competitive practice.

One might be forgiven for thinking that there are people in the CER with personal axes to grind against the ESB, who are intent on doing down the once fine organisation exemplified in those old ads.

But of course that is a nonsensical suggestion.

(Isn't it?)

Regards,

Fnergg