Electricity Price Increase

Head The Wall

More smart thinking from those feckin idiots, are they living in the real world at all. Here they are telling us to be come more competitive and they are ramping up all the costs that they are in charge of themselves.

The PSO levy was established by the Department of Public Enterprise in 1999 and is levied upon customers to offset costs faced by the likes of the ESB and Airtricty because of their state obligation to buy a certain percentage of peat generated and renewable electricity.At present, the Public Service Obligation (PSO) levy is charged at a rate of 0%

5% hike in electricity bills approved by Energy Regulator

I don't understand why we should have to be subsidising ESB because they are still using Peat stations. Surely it's a bad business decision on their part that they haven't modernised but yet we are the ones that have to pay for it. It's not like they couldn't absorb this cost out of the profits they made this year.

ESB revenues for 2009 amounted to €3.1 billion with profits of €580 million

It would be good to know what share of this goes to Airtricity and ESB because Airtricity are in Ireland since 2000. So why is this levy only being imposed now.

ei.sdraob

Head The Wall wrote: »

I don't understand why we should have to be subsidising ESB because they are still using Peat stations.

its politics @HTW

these peat stations employ people and we cant be firing anyone in this day and age from (semi)public service you know (i worked in ESB while there are nice people there i see so much sickening waste!)...

especially considering these stations are in the backyards of certain politicians and are the only major employer in area

kippy

I was just about to post this.

It's a disgrace when you analyse what is happening here.

1. This is a MAJOR driver of the cost of living, cost to do business here and the cost of producing anything in this country.
2. This is a cost that the government have a DIRECT input into via the ESB and various regulatory instruments.
3. This is coming at a time when the next budget will see another chunk of disposable and some indisposable income taken out of EVERYONES pockets.
4. I've said on other threads but these cuts are a lot easier to take for everyone if the costs of living and doing business are reduced. The government should be doing everything in their power to reduce these costs. Instead we see the opposite, first on fuel with these "Carbon" taxes, extra excise and now here.
5. The ESB, I believe have just dropped a cool billion to buy some northern Irish company - this appears to be how they intend to pay for it. What a fcuking joke............I would rather they didnt expand and passed the savings onto the consumer.
6. We now have more windfarms/renewable than ever, is this not having any impact on the cost of electricity at all?

If energy is costing so much to produce in this country we should
A: Get a few more interconnectors put in to England/Europe and buy far cheaper, mostly Nuc power from them (since we dont want to build on ourselves)
B: Run the ESB as it should be run. A not for profit organisation. As someone mentioned there was a half a billion profit last year......absolutely crazy....most of that is sunk in to foreign investments by the looks of it.

This really is making my blood boil, more than any paycuts/tax increases so far. Makes it boil almost as much as government induced rises in petrol/diesel/oil.....
When is someone going to call time on this joke.

changes

Its a little bit here and a little bit there. They have their hand in every pocket and your wallet and bank account. It all adds up and no doubt there is more to come.

Can we in anyway bring this sorry government down and bring on a general election.... this shower need a generation out of office imo.

goodgirl7279

Is that just esb or airtricity and bord gais as well?

kippy

goodgirl7279 wrote: »

Is that just esb or airtricity and bord gais as well?

Its a wholesale price so it effects all operators I believe, which makes it more of a joke.

Head The Wall

goodgirl7279 wrote: »

Is that just esb or airtricity and bord gais as well?

It just mentions that ESB and Airtricity will be receiving the benefit of it. Everyone in the country though will have to pay it regardless of who supplies your power

ESB statement on annual report 2009

ESB net debt increased during 2009 by €143 million to €2,231 million.

The largest pension deficit at any state-owned company is at ESB, where it stands at €2.2bn

In 1981 there were five staff members for every pensioner. This meant that for every pound that was paid into the scheme only 50p was paid out. However, after years of voluntary redundancies and the replacement of staff with contractors there are now more pensioners in the ESB than there are staff working .This means that for every euro paid into the pension scheme now, approximately €2 is being paid out.

kippy

Head The Wall wrote: »

It just mentions that ESB and Airtricity will be receiving the benefit of it. Everyone in the country though will have to pay it regardless of who supplies your power

ESB statement on annual report 2009

Potentially why the costs have increased.

Why the fcuk are they attempting to buy NIA then?

Still, I can now see why they are increasing prices - all that being said, there are better ways to plug pension deficits than to stifle growth on the whole island.

SEPT 23 1989

this will come into effect in November

g32

Probably to pay for the Fat Cat Overpaid ESB workers.

ESB Worker gets paid EUR 20.00 per hour.

ESB must be forced into pay cuts.

Then Fianna Fail/Green party can call a general election.

Head The Wall

Average wage in the ESB works out around €40 an hour,

Average pay and pension costs of €100,000 per year

ART6

Perhaps HTW's post #7 says it all why governments should not be allowed to run businesses. If ESB was a private company it would be insolvent. As it is the taxpayer/bill payer will pick up the tab. It might sink half the b****y employers in Ireland, but "that isn't our fault" (quote Brian Cowen)

Peat burning power stations? Explanation Mr. Gormley? Or are you more interested in stopping people from cutting some turf for their own fires (Oh God -- dioxins, carbon dioxide, global warming-- we must stop it) or counting frogs and bats?

Personally, in desperation, I look forward to an European federal state where Ireland becomes simply a district of Europe and actual government is provided by people who are not constrained by the parish pump, the brown envelope, and the wild extremes where tail parties with no discernable public vote (PDs, Greens) end up wagging the government dog. It seems to me clear that none of the current crop of what are laughingly called politicians in any of the parties have any idea of what they are doing other than furthering their own careers.

Faced with the emergence of the eastern economies, which are not known for their lack of high tech science, we have to get our costs down dramatically. Semi state companies must go, and political expedients tailoring their business plans must stop.

What a joke, what will go up next :rolleyes:

How about cutting wages in the ESB, most people have seen pay cuts why not ESB workers ?

amacachi

Absolute ****ing joke. I've been thinking for a while there should be a load of interconnectors between here and Britain so we could cover the country with windfarms and sell them electricity, now I think we should do it so we're not being ****ing ripped off so much.

flutered

they pulled this one to take our minds off the fiddlers ? 3, no mention of that on the 6.01 news either friday or this evening. people want to build a few air tricity gadgets in my area but the co. council in their wisdom ? says no way, a few people are stopped from saving turf because of the envoirenment, but the e.s.b. can harvest as much of it as they like, then charge us for it, also not a peep from the so called opposition about it, methinks a vote in this country is a vote wasted.

thebman

I imagine this increase is because the regulator and the government believe that not enough people have switched to bord gais and that they have not done their job in creating incentive for people to move and have not created competition.

:rolleyes:

It is a moronic way to go about trying to create competition but our government only understands ripping people off.

kippy

thebman wrote: »

I imagine this increase is because the regulator and the government believe that not enough people have switched to bord gais and that they have not done their job in creating incentive for people to move and have not created competition.

:rolleyes:

It is a moronic way to go about trying to create competition but our government only understands ripping people off.

I "think" this price rise will apply to Board Gais and others as well but not entirely sure.

Head The Wall

kippy wrote: »

I "think" this price rise will apply to Board Gais and others as well but not entirely sure.

Firstly on page 11 of the CER Decision paper there are two words in the wrong order, you would imagine somebody should have read this before publishing. These people don't instil much confidence initially.

CER Decision paper and Resposes here


It looks like the bulk of this goes to ESB which is not surprising at all

It is designed to support the national policy objectives of security of energy supply, the use of indigenous fuels (i.e. peat) and of the use renewable energy sources in electricity generation. Specifically, the proceeds of the levy are used to recoup the additional costs incurred by the ESB and other suppliers in having to source a proportion of their electricity supplies from such generators.

More rubbish here

For the 2010/2011 electricity tariff year the PSO levy is forecast to amount to €156.63m. This is a very substantive increase on recent PSO periods when the levy was running at, or close to, zero

Airtricity have an interesting response to the Levy, They want to know why the ESB Peat stations get a much larger share of the levy than the Edenderry Plant which is privately owned.

This smacks of favouritism in a bad way

• West Offaly, Lough Ree and Edenderry Power stations are all peat fired power stations of a similar age, yet the proposed PSO costs associated with the ESB Power Gen plants are much larger than those of the Edenderry plant. The difference in generation capacity associated with the ESB PG peat plants does not account for the sizable gap between the costs for the plants.

The response the CER gave basically sounded like it cost more to run the ESB stations than the comparable Private one so they were entitled to a levy instead of them becoming more economical.


This whole thing stinks to high heaven

ART6

The whole insane business is again the Greens exercising their single shared brain cell -- the one that seems to want to tax and regulate the human race out of existance in favour of bats and frogs.

From what I read the proceeds from this latest attempt at highway robbery are intended to further the environmental blight of wind turbines, and to pay for more peat-burning power stations when the same politicians have banned individuals from harvesting their own turf where their families have done for generations. What the Hell is environmentally sound about mass burning peat? IT IS NOT A RENEWABLE RESOURCE GORMLEY. It takes many thousands of years to lay down a peat bog.

So in the Green's strange world Paddy O'Reilly going out into the hills to cut turf for his fire, and even maybe sell some to locals, is unacceptable environmental damage, but a new ESP power station scalping the top off the landscape as they did at Edenderry if environmentally sound.

If ever I needed convincing that this country is run by corrupt, lying fanatics who may well be certifiable, I don't need it any longer. I have now taken up praying, since I suspect that all we can hope for to rid us of these cretins is God's lightning.

Macha

Environmental blight of wind turbines? That's a new one. Yes, I suppose when you compare it to open-cast coal mining or oil drilling it can be quite..oh wait. never mind.

As for the turf-cutting for generations, they've had 11 years of a derogation from what is an EU Directive. The attempts to lay that one at the feet of the Green Party betrays a lack of understanding of the legislation involved.

mikom

taconnol wrote: »

Environmental blight of wind turbines? That's a new one. Yes, I suppose when you compare it to open-cast coal mining or oil drilling it can be quite..oh wait. never mind.

Of which there are loads going on in Ireland..oh wait. never mind.

taconnol wrote: »

As for the turf-cutting for generations, they've had 11 years of a derogation from what is an EU Directive. The attempts to lay that one at the feet of the Green Party betrays a lack of understanding of the legislation involved.

No they'd prefer the importation of Polish coal and Arab oil to keep the houses heated instead. Still, I suppose they are able to tax those fuel sources, so that's ok..

Macha

mikom wrote: »

Of which there are loads going on in Ireland..oh wait. never mind.

Ah yes, let us never mind what happens outside our borders, regardless of whether we end up importing these materials.

mikom wrote: »

No they'd prefer the importation of Polish coal and Arab oil to keep the houses heated instead. Still, I suppose they are able to tax those fuel sources, so that's ok..

?

mikom

taconnol wrote: »

Ah yes, let us never mind what happens outside our borders, regardless of whether we end up importing these materials.


?

Whether?

Macha

mikom wrote: »

Whether?

or not (I meant to add)

30H!3

This is an absolute joke.

The only thing that can save this economy is competitiveness in the global market. The foreign multinationals will sure want to stay in Ireland with a nice 5% rise in (already too high) electricity costs. Well done minister ryan, real smart move.

has also written to the Commission for Energy Regulation (CER) warning that the levy will cost between 550 and 800 jobs as multinational companies are under pressure from head office to cut costs.

If they think this move will only cost 800 multinational jobs they are dreaming. If you count in the amount of domestic jobs in hotels/restaurants and other small businesses the figure will be much higher.


There are 8,000 staff there with an average salary of €70,000 each. It's simply unsustainable but they know they can't be touched. An implosion is inevitable (in esb among other state/semi-state bodies).

flutered

when multi national jobs are lost people have to travel the world to get them replaced, also people have to be hired to do this, it also justifys highly expensevly and highly pensioned peoples existence.

dubhthach

Energy regulator on the radio at the moment going on that "we have to raise 5% to encourage renewables, because we depend so much on imported fossil fuels" , if you ask me that's even more reason for us to build nuclear. Wind power will never cover enough of our power needs.

It's also a disgrace that the ESB make over 500million in profit. Let we the consumers have to take the pain. From what they are saying 87million from this levy will go the ESB alone.

ei.sdraob

dubhthach wrote: »

Energy regulator on the radio at the moment going on that "we have to raise 5% to encourage renewables, because we depend so much on imported fossil fuels" , if you ask me that's even more reason for us to build nuclear. Wind power will never cover enough of our power needs.

It's also a disgrace that the ESB make over 500million in profit. Let we the consumers have to take the pain. From what they are saying 87million from this levy will go the ESB alone.

Yep, we need cheap and reliable energy

how much raping will the people take when it comes to electricity prices (lol just remembered parallel thread on consumerism, is electricity a need or a want )

before they realise that high prices affects so much of the economy in a negative way at a very bad time and consider discussing nuclear

bleh

ART6

taconnol wrote: »

Environmental blight of wind turbines? That's a new one. Yes, I suppose when you compare it to open-cast coal mining or oil drilling it can be quite..oh wait. never mind.

As for the turf-cutting for generations, they've had 11 years of a derogation from what is an EU Directive. The attempts to lay that one at the feet of the Green Party betrays a lack of understanding of the legislation involved.

As we have discussed before on another issue (the incinerator) perhaps a true life cycle analysis on wind turbines might be appropriate? It is not sufficient to state that they can generate X Megawatts of power free of charge using wind. There are the environmental costs of their raw materials and their conversion into turbines, the cost of installation and transmission lines etc. Environmental blight? In my view yes. If you sought planning permission for a 40 metre concrete tower on your land, would it not be likely to be rejected on visual impact grounds? However, if you want to install a hundred wind turbines in the landscape, that's OK even if their visual impact is appalling -- unless of course you consider a mass of concrete towers with huge propellors on top of them to be aesthetically pleasing.

In any case, wind power will never supply our energy needs, or even a realistic percentage of them, unless we cover the whole landscape with them. Even if we do, the extra unit price determined by the Regulator and the government to encourage them means that their output will always be expensive compared with other sources of energy (coal, oil, nuclear, or even, *Heaven forbid* waste incineration). So we pay more for something that is inadequate and unreliable. Wind turbines don't replace power stations because they cannot guarantee output.

I am aware that the private turf cutters have had 11 years of derogation from the EU. All I am questioning is how can the ban be supported on one hand while planning massive peat excavation for new power stations on the other? I would guess that the turf cutters will have and have had negligible impact upon peat bogs (they've been doing it for enough generations), while the new power stations will wipe out the bogs in a few tens of years at best. Are we to believe that the EU want individual turf cutters to stop doing it on environmental protection grounds, but are happy with the government plans for the ESB? If so then Ireland is not the only asylum run by the inmates.

Yes, I lay it at the feet of the Green party because they espoused the idea with considerable enthusiasm while imposing a levy on power supplies to encourage turf burning power stations. Banning extraction of (I'd guess) at most a few thousand tonnes a year in favour of hundreds of thousands of tonnes is, in my view at least, typical of the fanatical and unscientific attitues of the Greens.

As other posters have said in this thread, given that peat is the only natural resource we have and it is not renewable, then nuclear is the only realistic option and sooner or later the people and the government are going be forced out of their cosy green mindset and accept reality. Possibly at that point the Greens will suffer apoplexy and hide away in their caves for their bones to be found by future archeologists. That, for me, is an appealing potential outcome of nuclear power:)

jmayo

ei.sdraob wrote: »

its politics @HTW

these peat stations employ people and we cant be firing anyone in this day and age from (semi)public service you know (i worked in ESB while there are nice people there i see so much sickening waste!)...

especially considering these stations are in the backyards of certain politicians and are the only major employer in area

A few years back there was a station being closed down in the Midlands and yet there were no job losses. :rolleyes:

dubhthach wrote: »

Energy regulator on the radio at the moment going on that "we have to raise 5% to encourage renewables, because we depend so much on imported fossil fuels" , if you ask me that's even more reason for us to build nuclear. Wind power will never cover enough of our power needs.

It's also a disgrace that the ESB make over 500million in profit. Let we the consumers have to take the pain. From what they are saying 87million from this levy will go the ESB alone.

Yet another needless quangoe setup by guess who, bertie.
http://www.cer.ie/en/about-us-overview.aspx

They are supposedly keeping ESB prices high, so that other players can compete.
Another player competing is actually another semi state.
WTF is that about ?
We have the third highest electricity prices in the EU and are going to ramp them up even more.
Do these idiots have any idea how that will affect industry and consumers ?

He claims we have to do this to ensure prices are cheaper in the future.
If these eejits keep going like this there ain't going to be much of a future.
ONLY 87 million is going to the ESB.
So where is the rest going ?

If we want real non fossil fuel energy reliance lets start building a nuclear plant.

Head The Wall

jmayo wrote: »

ONLY 87 million is going to the ESB.
So where is the rest going ?

Lough Ree which is an ESB Peat power Station receives €29,946,533

West Offaly which is an ESB Peat power Station receives €42,134,897

EPL which is a Bord Na Mona owned Peat power station receives €6,116,780

AERs (Technologies include wind energy, small-scale hydropower, combined heat and power (CHP) biomass (landfill gas), biomass-CHP; biomass-anaerobic digestion and offshore wind) Receives €13,500,000

Capacity 2005 (Aughinish Alumina and Tynagh power stations receive support under the PSO levy???) Receives €14,000,000

REFIT (This covers five categories of plant. These are Large Wind, Small Wind, Hydro, Landfill and Biomass.) receives €29,726,233

Can't get much more of a breakdown than that. I'm all for renewable energy but I don't see why we are supporting two relatively modern and new power plants under the CAPACITY option €14m.

We are giving ESB €73M to keep non eco uncompetitive plants running.

Macha

ART6 wrote: »

As we have discussed before on another issue (the incinerator) perhaps a true life cycle analysis on wind turbines might be appropriate? It is not sufficient to state that they can generate X Megawatts of power free of charge using wind. There are the environmental costs of their raw materials and their conversion into turbines, the cost of installation and transmission lines etc. Environmental blight? In my view yes. If you sought planning permission for a 40 metre concrete tower on your land, would it not be likely to be rejected on visual impact grounds? However, if you want to install a hundred wind turbines in the landscape, that's OK even if their visual impact is appalling -- unless of course you consider a mass of concrete towers with huge propellors on top of them to be aesthetically pleasing.

Are you suggesting that the life cycle of a wind turbine is comparative to that of coal or oil power plant?

As for the visual impact, I simply do not agree. Research carried out by Failte Ireland shows that a majority of tourists also do not consider wind turbines as having a negative impact on the Irish landscape. Moreover in future most wind turbines will be offshore. Perhaps we should consider the visual impact of our other forms of energy? Ever seen a coal mine? Do you also object to the visual impact of the bulk transmission grid?

ART6 wrote: »

In any case, wind power will never supply our energy needs, or even a realistic percentage of them, unless we cover the whole landscape with them. Even if we do, the extra unit price determined by the Regulator and the government to encourage them means that their output will always be expensive compared with other sources of energy (coal, oil, nuclear, or even, *Heaven forbid* waste incineration). So we pay more for something that is inadequate and unreliable. Wind turbines don't replace power stations because they cannot guarantee output.

The All Island Grid Study demonstrated that 40% renewables is feasible for the Irish grid. As mentioned above, most of them would be offshore where the visual impact is minimsed and capacity factors are higher.

As for the costs, well how about including the externalised costs for once and making a comparison then? Increased storage and interconnection with Europe in turn facilitates greater percentages of renewables. As for reliability, the predictability of wind turbines is increasing and other forms of renewables are dispatchable, particularly so with storage solutions. The volatility of the international oil markets itself is a cost as variable prices have a negative impact on economic activity. There are plenty of academic studies on the feasibility of high percentages of integrated renewables that don't include nuclear. I'm not against nuclear but it doesn't integrate well with renewables.

ART6 wrote: »

I am aware that the private turf cutters have had 11 years of derogation from the EU. All I am questioning is how can the ban be supported on one hand while planning massive peat excavation for new power stations on the other? I would guess that the turf cutters will have and have had negligible impact upon peat bogs (they've been doing it for enough generations), while the new power stations will wipe out the bogs in a few tens of years at best. Are we to believe that the EU want individual turf cutters to stop doing it on environmental protection grounds, but are happy with the government plans for the ESB? If so then Ireland is not the only asylum run by the inmates.

They most certainly have not been having just a negligible effect. Bord na Mona have also been banned from cutting turf from an SACs and have been for the past 11 years. The derogation only applied to private turf cutters. Nevertheless, during this 11 year period, 35% of the original area of active raised bogs has been lost. But the turf cutters have been allowed to move elsewhere - the legislation was introduced under the Habitats Directive, not any energy or carbon directive.

ART6 wrote: »

Yes, I lay it at the feet of the Green party because they espoused the idea with considerable enthusiasm while imposing a levy on power supplies to encourage turf burning power stations. Banning extraction of (I'd guess) at most a few thousand tonnes a year in favour of hundreds of thousands of tonnes is, in my view at least, typical of the fanatical and unscientific attitues of the Greens.

Oh yes, why let things like facts get in the way of a good rant? Never mind the fact that the turf cutters had to stop anyway and that it was introduced under EU legislation in order to preserve habitats. Never mind the two laws are unrelated. Never mind the fact that it clearly states in the CER decision the following:

The CER has been advised that the Department of Communications, Energy & Natural Resources intends to review the operation of the peat PSO over the coming months.

You cannot simply shut down peat production, it counted for 5% of energy generation in this country in 2008.

ART6 wrote: »

As other posters have said in this thread, given that peat is the only natural resource we have and it is not renewable, then nuclear is the only realistic option and sooner or later the people and the government are going be forced out of their cosy green mindset and accept reality. Possibly at that point the Greens will suffer apoplexy and hide away in their caves for their bones to be found by future archeologists. That, for me, is an appealing potential outcome of nuclear power:)

Hah, you think nuclear was ever on the cards in Ireland? And the fact we don't have it now is because the Green Party has been in power for the last 3 years?

Show me a viable, commerically available nuclear power plant that is suitable for the Irish grid, would be cost-effective and wouldn't be mired in planning delays. Show me the standard lead-in time for such a project. I'd like to see it.

30H!3

This new levy has f**k all to do with increasing renewable energy, it's simply to sustain the over-inflated wages and pensions of the untouchable unionized monster that is ESB.

Max Power1

linked article wrote:

is levied upon customers to offset costs faced by the likes of the ESB and Airtricty because of their state obligation to buy a certain percentage of peat generated and renewable electricity. These peat and renewal energy obligations are aimed at improving the country’s security of energy supply and at driving the renewables sector.

Why is there a state obligation to buy peat generated electricity? Seems like this is what the PSO levy is funding for the most part.

It is worth mentioning that this is not a "new" levy, but was charged in the past. It has been at 0% in the past couple of years as no subsidy was required.

Head The Wall

They didn't need to charge it while the prices were high, now that the ESB have competition we are just paying them back in a different way.

Macha

Max Power1 wrote: »

Why is there a state obligation to buy peat generated electricity? Seems like this is what the PSO levy is funding for the most part.

It is worth mentioning that this is not a "new" levy, but was charged in the past. It has been at 0% in the past couple of years as no subsidy was required.

Energy security. We buy in €6 billion worth of energy in the form of fossil fuels every year. or about 89% of our total energy generation fuel. The IEA has identified us as one of a handful of nations with very high energy security risk.

changes

People really need to start taking to the streets otherwise they will just keep bring in charges and levies again and again and again.

Complaining from the comfort of your own home/office or on joe duffy is just not going to cut it.

The older people and the medical card issue showed they only way is to take to the streets.... we seem not quite bothered enough for that unfortunately.

Metalfan

kippy wrote: »

I was just about to post this.

It's a disgrace when you analyse what is happening here.

1. This is a MAJOR driver of the cost of living, cost to do business here and the cost of producing anything in this country.
2. This is a cost that the government have a DIRECT input into via the ESB and various regulatory instruments.
3. This is coming at a time when the next budget will see another chunk of disposable and some indisposable income taken out of EVERYONES pockets.
4. I've said on other threads but these cuts are a lot easier to take for everyone if the costs of living and doing business are reduced. The government should be doing everything in their power to reduce these costs. Instead we see the opposite, first on fuel with these "Carbon" taxes, extra excise and now here.
5. The ESB, I believe have just dropped a cool billion to buy some northern Irish company - this appears to be how they intend to pay for it. What a fcuking joke............I would rather they didnt expand and passed the savings onto the consumer.
6. We now have more windfarms/renewable than ever, is this not having any impact on the cost of electricity at all?

If energy is costing so much to produce in this country we should
A: Get a few more interconnectors put in to England/Europe and buy far cheaper, mostly Nuc power from them (since we dont want to build on ourselves)
B: Run the ESB as it should be run. A not for profit organisation. As someone mentioned there was a half a billion profit last year......absolutely crazy....most of that is sunk in to foreign investments by the looks of it.

This really is making my blood boil, more than any paycuts/tax increases so far. Makes it boil almost as much as government induced rises in petrol/diesel/oil.....
When is someone going to call time on this joke.

do they actually think that they are helping out the average joe by increasing the cost of his bills? its a joke. Are they really so far removed from reality?

Head The Wall

Yes they have not got a clue

snaps

can someone explain this levy? is this the carbon tax? I'm with Airtricity so does it affect me?

Is everything now being taxed to high hell??

Oh well, timber for me this year, least they cant tax that for private sales!

Cut down more trees is the message they are sending out. Airtricity customers should be rewarded for using renewable energy.

This country is on its knees big time.

kippy

snaps wrote: »

can someone explain this levy? is this the carbon tax? I'm with Airtricity so does it affect me?

Is everything now being taxed to high hell??

Oh well, timber for me this year, least they cant tax that for private sales!

Cut down more trees is the message they are sending out. Airtricity customers should be rewarded for using renewable energy.

This country is on its knees big time.

Yes, it effects you.
It is because of renewable energy that this levy is being imposed (allegedly)
Airtricity customers arent using that much renewable energy. Airtricity buy electricity from the ESB together with their windfarmed stuff (which wouldnt keep a small house powered)

A disgrace no matter how you dress it up.........

Macha

snaps wrote: »

can someone explain this levy? is this the carbon tax? I'm with Airtricity so does it affect me?

The levy is a subsidy for additional fuel costs incurred by electricity providers under their obligation to purchase domestic fuel, including renewables and peat. 50% of the levy goes to peat, although the Dept of Environment will be examining the levy later on this year with a view to reducing it. It will impact you less if you are with Airtricity.

snaps wrote: »

Is everything now being taxed to high hell??

No. Ireland still has one of the lowest all-in tax rates in the OECD and this will not change that.

McDougal

This price increase is to subsidise Airtricity and Bord Gais

lmimmfn

Surely this is to help fund the salaries of the hardworking ESB?

Liam Byrne

It's a joke really. Anyone see the report on this tonight on the news ?

"We need competition in order to keep prices low"

The Regulator tonight on the news :

"We need this increase to ensure that Airtricity and the others continue to operate in Ireland".

So basically, they need competition in order to lower prices, so they "need" Airtricity to stay in business, but in order to have them stay in business they need to raise prices.

It would be funny if it weren't affecting every single aspect of Irish society, including competitiveness.

Is there ANYONE in the decision-making process in this country that has even and OUNCE of cop on ?

30H!3

taconnol wrote: »

No. Ireland still has one of the lowest all-in tax rates in the OECD and this will not change that.

Surely that can't be right, with PAYE, PRSI, income levies, DIRT, VAT on purchases, motor tax, fuel tax, carbon tax, cigarette tax, stamp duty, and pending property tax and water tax in the next 2 years we must already have one of the highest "all-in" rates the OECD. Most people earning a decent wage (60k+) pay over 50% tax/prsi/levy on a large chunk of their wages before they even see a cent. Do you have any source for what you said?

Liam Byrne

30H!3 wrote: »

Surely that can't be right, with PAYE, PRSI, income levies, DIRT, VAT on purchases, motor tax, fuel tax, carbon tax, cigarette tax, stamp duty, and pending property tax and water tax in the next 2 years we must already have one of the highest "all-in" rates the OECD. Most people earning a decent wage (60k+) pay over 50% tax/prsi/levy on a large chunk of their wages before they even see a cent. Do you have any source for what you said?

You even left out the "promised to be abolished" VRT bull and the legacy of the last financial fiasco with insurance levies and PRSI.

Basically, FF have repeatedly drilled out the lie that we're a low tax economy.

Based on the level of services offered in return for that tax, we're a very high tax economy.

The amount of tax that we're paying compared to the level of service that we get is crazy, with lots of basics not even included, such as waste disposal (private companies required), proper health services (private insurance required), overpriced and non-existent public transport options, tolls on roads, etc.

heyjude

I wondered when I heard this, whether it will lead to increased profits for the ESB or Bord Gais, as if it does, then effectively the price increase just serves as another stealth tax, though in this case, not one directly sanctioned by Brian Lenihan. :rolleyes:

As for the argument that the increase is justified in some way by helping to ensure security of electricity supply, through helping subsidise the continued operation of otherwise uneconomic/expensive peat burning power stations. This might make sense if we generated most of our electricity using peat, but in reality we generate 6% (2007 figures - http://www.energycustomers.ie/electricity/index.aspx) using peat, so its hard to see how this 6% provides any real security and even running at peak production(fuel permitting), its hard to see how, in an emergency,the peat stations would keep more than a very small proportion of the lights on, but they do make all our electricity more expensive.

population

It amazes me when politicians, and many a commentator I might add, spout out the line that the ESB is one of the great Irish success stories. It is very easy to be a success story when you have operated as an effective monopoly since inception, and if you continue to get large swathes of free money every time you feel like it.

Macha

30H!3 wrote: »

Surely that can't be right, with PAYE, PRSI, income levies, DIRT, VAT on purchases, motor tax, fuel tax, carbon tax, cigarette tax, stamp duty, and pending property tax and water tax in the next 2 years we must already have one of the highest "all-in" rates the OECD. Most people earning a decent wage (60k+) pay over 50% tax/prsi/levy on a large chunk of their wages before they even see a cent. Do you have any source for what you said?

There's no "surely" about it. Check for yourself:

http://www.oecd.org/document/60/0,3343,en_2649_34533_1942460_1_1_1_1,00.html#tbw

We have an incredibly warped view of how much tax we pay in comparison with other OECD countries. Incredibly warped.

Head The Wall

Income tax levels are pretty low if not non existent for a lot of people in this contry but the amount of other bullsh1t taxes we have to pay like VRT, motor tax, health levys and duties counteract this. Just because it's not taken through income tax doesn't mean we don't pay much tax.

There's a reason we are one of the most expensive countries in the world to live in