Electric Ireland - charging for not using enough electricity.

Bannasidhe

Just saw this today and have to say this really takes the biscuit

Over 100,000 face higher bills for not using enough electricity

KITTY HOLLAND

MORE THAN 100,000 domestic customers of Electric Ireland have begun receiving higher electricity bills – because they are not using enough electricity.

A new “low user standing charge” was introduced by the ESB-controlled supplier with effect from February 1st, targeting customers who “use an average of 2 units (2 kWhs) or less per day in any billing period”.

Households not using enough electricity are seeing their bills increase by 15.5 cent a day, or €9.45 per two-monthly bill, or €56.70 per year.

Domestic customers have been informed of the increase in bill inserts, in some cases by letter, in the past fortnight.

Among them was Philip Campbell, who lives in Harold’s Cross, Dublin, who has cut his electricity use dramatically in the past few months to save money.

“My bills used to be about €250 but I have got that down to between €80 and €125 per bill, just by being a lot more careful.”

He says he was alarmed when he got the letter last Thursday. “It’s just annoying to think that I’ve been making all this effort to save electricity and now I might be charged more. I think I would easily sometimes use less than two units a day.”

However, an ESB spokesman said the increase was “really aimed at vacant dwellings and premises, or holiday homes that are vacant most of the year”. The average daily use over the billing period would be measured, he said.

“Two units per day would be consumed by, for example, a small fridge-freezer on all day, by cooking on a small plate for 20 minutes, by having four 60W bulbs on for three hours, or by running a cycle on a washing machine.”

He said the company was incurring losses on dwellings with “very low consumption” of electricity.

“There are ongoing costs, including meter reading, sending out bills, administration, customer service, which are associated with providing electricity and we have been making a loss on about 10 per cent of our accounts.”

The company has 1.3 million domestic accounts. The average household uses 14 units per day.

“This extra charge will enable us to recover these losses. This is not about discouraging energy-efficiency. The other option was to increase all customers’ standing charges.”

The extra charge will only apply to electricity accounts and not gas.

Asked if someone could save money by having their electricity disconnected while their dwelling was vacant, the spokesman said it would be matter for the individual. “They would have to bear in mind there is a charge for disconnection and reconnection of about €70 each, plus VAT.”

Both Airtricity and Bord Gáis said they were not planning an increased low-user standing charge for energy. In urban areas, Airtricity’s daily standing charge for electricity is 36.3 cent per day, and Bord Gáis’s is 32 cent per day. This now compares to 48.3 cent per day for Electric Ireland.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2012/0227/1224312442808.html?via=mr

Customers are being charged for not using enough electricity!!! On one had we are being told to cut back, we are being hit with carbon taxes, we are having the message re:climate change and how we must switch things off to 'save the planet' coming at us from all angles yet here we have people being penalised for monitoring their use of electricity and cutting back.

Their justification for this - overheads ' including meter reading, sending out bills, administration, customer service' are also incurred by the the other two electricity suppliers.
Yet, according to the article, neither intend to raise their standing charge prices and currently charge significantly less then Electric Ireland's now 48.3 cent per day with Bord Gáis on 32 cent p.d and Airtiricity 36.3 cent p.d.

Now, this doesn't affect me personally as I am with BG but there was a time, before the' big switch', when due to work commitments, having A rated appliances, good insulation etc etc, my home electricity use was very, very low and bills of around 50 euro for 2 months were the norm. If I then was expected to pay extra because I used little so electricity I would be furious.

I can see people switching suppliers in droves due to this which makes me wonder if this is some weird business strategy on EI's part or just an example of ill-thought out gouging.

How on Earth is our domestic economy going to recover which needs people start to spending when companies are now charging us for not using enough of their product?

touts

Well people are being charged a TV licence even if they don't watch RTE and soon they will be charged the fee even if they don't own a TV. This Electric Ireland fee is just another stealth tax by a government owned company. Lots more like this to come as the government come up with new ways to squeeze blood from the stone.

Dannyboy83

Not sure if this is still accurate:

Max Powers

Usual bull from a SSB, is this ESB or ESB networks because you could change to different provider.

Tora Bora

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Just saw this today and have to say this really takes the biscuit

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2012/0227/1224312442808.html?via=mr

Customers are being charged for not using enough electricity!!! On one had we are being told to cut back, we are being hit with carbon taxes, we are having the message re:climate change and how we must switch things off to 'save the planet' coming at us from all angles yet here we have people being penalised for monitoring their use of electricity and cutting back.

Their justification for this - overheads ' including meter reading, sending out bills, administration, customer service' are also incurred by the the other two electricity suppliers.
Yet, according to the article, neither intend to raise their standing charge prices and currently charge significantly less then Electric Ireland's now 48.3 cent per day with Bord Gáis on 32 cent p.d and Airtiricity 36.3 cent p.d.

Now, this doesn't affect me personally as I am with BG but there was a time, before the' big switch', when due to work commitments, having A rated appliances, good insulation etc etc, my home electricity use was very, very low and bills of around 50 euro for 2 months were the norm. If I then was expected to pay extra because I used little so electricity I would be furious.

I can see people switching suppliers in droves due to this which makes me wonder if this is some weird business strategy on EI's part or just an example of ill-thought out gouging.

How on Earth is our domestic economy going to recover which needs people start to spending when companies are now charging us for not using enough of their product?

The "spoilt, gravy supping" deciples of Brendan Ogle, have to be paid their rightful entitlements you know. http://www.thejournal.ie/watch-union-chief-admits-esb-staff-are-spoilt-211399-Aug2011/

mike65

The ESB/Electric Ireland standing charge is now 48.3 cent per day as compared to Bord Gais rate of 32.0

syklops

mike65 wrote: »

The ESB/Electric Ireland standing charge is now 48.3 cent per day as compared to Bord Gais rate of 32.0

I dont understand why people are still on ESB.

TheZohanS

We have a "Talk to: Electric Ireland" forum, I wonder if they can justify it...

Manach

The Minister gave a radio speech on this. It was in a rather rambling tone which both defended this and appealed for the consumer to be more energy efficient.
Very Alice in Wonderland territory.

Dannyboy83

I guess there is a certain parallel between this and one of the debates going on in Germany at the moment....I'm not sure how serious this proposal is, my brother in law told me about it and he tends to exaggerate - it's slightly O/T but relevant in terms of the bigger picture.

http://www.thelocal.de/opinion/20120215-40727.html
A group of young German MPs have proposed that people who do not have children should pay extra tax to help pay for social services in the future.

In a detailed paper submitted to Chancellor Angela Merkel, the conservative group surrounding Marco Wanderwitz, suggested that from next year, Germans over the age of 25 who do not have children, should pay a share of their income as a special tax.

Those with one child should pay half the rate, while the tax would be dropped altogether for people with two children.

woodoo

This is madness. People are forever being told to use less energy and now they are being punished for not using enough. I hope the politicians make them reverse this.

Nody

TheZohan wrote: »

We have a "Talk to: Electric Ireland" forum, I wonder if they can justify it...

I would guess that it would be as effective as asking a random vodapfone clerk why vodafone did a price increase; i.e. all you'll get is the company line as that's all they have been told (and are allowed to give as reason).

Manach

"A group of young German MPs have proposed that people who do not have children should pay extra tax to help pay for social services in the future."
There is precedent. In old Roman Empire law, a similar type tax was introduced by Augustus over concerns that lack of births would lead to problems maintaining the State.

Bannasidhe

I was just talking to a friend of mine who lives up the side of a mountain in Clare. She has invested a fortune in time, energy and money in having her home as close to zero impact on the environment as possible. Rather then have a septic tank for example she has some certified water treatment system (I remember years ago the late Kirsty McCall had one) involving gravel, reed beds and all other kinds of things I don't understand. She is being plagued by Clare CoCo as she has no septic tank - they insist she installs one and pays the charge- yet each time they test her water it is of a higher standard then tap water and there is no evidence of any ground pollution.

She also has Photovoltaic solar panels and wind turbines which supply her electricity so her connection to the grid is really just a 'back-up' for her - she needs a constant supply for her job. It was the hassle she faced getting the house (an old cottage she was restoring) connected to the grid and how much the electricity was costing her that got her interested in alternative methods in the first place.

For various reasons the only supplier she can use is Electric Ireland who have just informed her she will be hit by this low usage charge. She is beyond furious....

DonegalBonz

A house that is in anyway occupied would use more than 2 units/day, Would cooking my dinner and watching a bit of tv not use this? It looks like this will not affect the vast majority of people, contrary to what is being painted in the outraged phone-ins and front pages.

n97 mini

syklops wrote: »

I dont understand why people are still on ESB.

This is originating from ESB Networks, who read all the meters, so expect the other "suppliers" to do something similar.

In fairness this does not apply to the ordinary customer. This only really applies to properties which are idle for long periods of time, and on which ESB will never make it's money back on the capital costs, never mind on the costs of reading the meters every four months.

If it means I'm not subsidising the costs of servicing empty properties, I'm all for it.

Bannasidhe

n97 mini wrote: »

This is originating from ESB Networks, who read all the meters, so expect the other "suppliers" to do something similar.

In fairness this does not apply to the ordinary customer. This only really applies to properties which are idle for long periods of time, and on which ESB will never make it's money back on the capital costs, never mind on the costs of reading the meters every four months.

If it means I'm not subsidising the costs of servicing empty properties, I'm all for it.

TBH I think you are buying the spin the ESB has put on this. The article quoted one man who is being affected as he cut his electricity usage as he couldn't afford it. I mentioned a friend of mine who due to her investment in alternative, renewable energy is being affected by it. I am sure they are not the only 'ordinary' people who will be penalised by this.

Remember this is a company that spent 7 million on re-branding last year. It has constantly defended it's salary levels (average of 75,000 p.a. including overtime in 2009).

One should also consider this article

ESB profits fall 40% on costs rise
By Vincent Ryan
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2012

The ESB recorded a sharp decline in profits in the first half of last year.

Profits at the dominant provider in the Irish electricity market fell 40% from €112.6m to €87.7m for six months ending on June 30.

Finance costs rose after ESB finalised the acquisition of the Northern Ireland Electricity business in late 2010, which impacted negatively on ESB’s ability to generate profits.

The results came just weeks after Pat Rabbitte, the minister for communications, energy & natural resources, confirmed that the Government is considering plans to sell a stake in the ESB.

The decision to sell state assets despite adverse market conditions was made after the Government won approval to use some of the proceeds of a sale of state infrastructure to invest in the economy, as well as pay down debt.

Mr Rabbitte has insisted that the Government will not participate in any "firesales".
Revenues from ESB Electric Ireland, which is considered to be the most likely arm of the ESB to be sold off, have fallen from €947m to €801m this year.

The transmission network, which it is argued should not be sold as it is a vital piece of state infrastructure, was the most profitable part of the ESB group. ESB Networks had an operating profit of €120m.

The ESB group which includes ESB Networks, ESB Energy International and Northern Ireland Electricity, recorded a strong growth in revenue. The groups Operating profits for the group grew strongly as operating costs across the group fell by €37m. There was also a reduction in operational losses at Electric Ireland falling from a loss of €32m to €13m.

ESB continues to pay an impressive wage bill, meaning the company’s payroll was a significant operational cost last year. Employees received €248m in salaries, an increase of €15m on last year.

ESB is also obliged t to pay out significant pension contributions until 2021. The figures released yesterday reveal a pension deficit of €895.4m at the end of June, a slightly improved situation from €896.7m at the end of 2010.

http://www.examiner.ie/business/esb-profits-fall-40-on-costs-rise-184661.html

So this is a company that has a massive wage bill - and is known to pay very high salaries - who recently bought an electricity provider in another jurisdiction, had a huge pensions deficit, needlessly spent 7 million on a rebranding project and is now penalising people for not consuming enough of their product.

ESB Networks had an operating profit of €120m.
The ESB group revenue increased from €1.35bn to €1.38bn.

markpb

Bannasidhe wrote: »

For various reasons the only supplier she can use is Electric Ireland who have just informed her she will be hit by this low usage charge. She is beyond furious....

According to ESB Electric, she won't be affected by it if she's a micro-generator.

Bannasidhe

markpb wrote: »

According to ESB Electric, she won't be affected by it if she's a micro-generator.

According to the letter she received this morning she will be affected .

I do not know if she sells electricity back to the grid, she may use it all herself as her energy needs are high (some kind of scientific analysis of geological samples - it's sciencey so she lost me 3 words into the explanation...)

Now this person is a highly paid, sought after, specialist in her field so it's not about the money for her. It's a matter of principle. She will pay for what she consumes. She has accepted (with just a minor whinge) that as a rural dweller her standing charges are already higher then urban dwellers but fails to see why she is being penalised for being energy efficient.

I am amazed that people are defending this TBH - the ESB group are profit making, they continue to pay salaries way in excess of the average industrial wage, they have employed an UK debt collection agency to chase down people in arrears and now they are targeting those who, in their eyes, do not use enough electricity. So what if a house is empty? If it is not using electricity the owners should not be penalised for that.

Perhaps those who have reduced their car journeys due to petrol/diesel costs should have to pay a bit more at the pump to make up for their lack of consumption?

Or maybe Iarnród Éireann should introduce a special fare structure aimed that those who don't commute by train often enough?

mike65

I was listening to the Head of Spin at Electric Ireland on RTE News and this change didn't have to go through the regulator so no one was required to examine the justification and presumably if they'd decided this new tariff could be applied on a much high point say 5 Kwh per day that would have sailed through unchecked as well.

Bannasidhe

The charge will only apply to a minority of customers who use an average of 2 units (2kWhs) or less per day in any billing period (typically 61 days). Standing Charges will be increased by 15.5 cent (incl. VAT) per day or €9.45 (incl. VAT) per two monthly bill.

https://www.esb.ie/esbcustomersupply/residential/price-plans/low-user-standing-charge.jsp#ex-q3

So during the summer months ESB costumers better make sure to use at least 2 units of electricity per day (even if you are on your holliers ) or pay in cents per day

Low Usage Standing Charge –Urban Daily 42.63(ex VAT) 48.39 (incl VAT)

Low usage Standing Charge - Rural Daily 52.27 59.33

Nightsaver is ever more outrageous:

Low Usage Standing Charge –Urban Daily 53.42 60.63
Low usage Standing Charge - Rural Daily 63.98 72.62

Godge

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Just saw this today and have to say this really takes the biscuit

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2012/0227/1224312442808.html?via=mr

Customers are being charged for not using enough electricity!!! On one had we are being told to cut back, we are being hit with carbon taxes, we are having the message re:climate change and how we must switch things off to 'save the planet' coming at us from all angles yet here we have people being penalised for monitoring their use of electricity and cutting back.

Their justification for this - overheads ' including meter reading, sending out bills, administration, customer service' are also incurred by the the other two electricity suppliers.
Yet, according to the article, neither intend to raise their standing charge prices and currently charge significantly less then Electric Ireland's now 48.3 cent per day with Bord Gáis on 32 cent p.d and Airtiricity 36.3 cent p.d.

Now, this doesn't affect me personally as I am with BG but there was a time, before the' big switch', when due to work commitments, having A rated appliances, good insulation etc etc, my home electricity use was very, very low and bills of around 50 euro for 2 months were the norm. If I then was expected to pay extra because I used little so electricity I would be furious.

I can see people switching suppliers in droves due to this which makes me wonder if this is some weird business strategy on EI's part or just an example of ill-thought out gouging.

How on Earth is our domestic economy going to recover which needs people start to spending when companies are now charging us for not using enough of their product?

Electricity prices are much higher than they were before.

To be caught for the higher charge your current bills would have to be lower than €49.12 per two month period (or €24.56 per month).

I do not believe that there are many people living in houses where the bills are less than that. If there are, it raises other questions. Fuel allowance is €20 per week towards ESB etc. At €80 per month for six months equivalent to €40 per month over 12 months, if there are huge numbers out there with genuine electricity bills below €24.56 per month, it must follow that there are a lot of people making a profit on the fuel allowance from social welfare.

People can't have it every way. If this is a measure really affecting ordinary people living ordinary lives (rather than second homes and empty houses) then we are paying far too much in fuel allowance and a saving can be made there.

How many of the people complaining about this measure would support a cut in fuel allowance?

patwicklow

Rip off Ireland rises again.

Priori

Bannasidhe wrote: »

She also has Photovoltaic solar panels and wind turbines which supply her electricity so her connection to the grid is really just a 'back-up' for her... For various reasons the only supplier she can use is Electric Ireland who have just informed her she will be hit by this low usage charge. She is beyond furious....

From what I've read about this charge, apparently it won't apply to Electric Ireland's MicroGen customers (it sounds like your friend would fall into that category). There was a thread about this issue last month - see here.

Bannasidhe

Godge wrote: »

Electricity prices are much higher than they were before.

To be caught for the higher charge your current bills would have to be lower than €49.12 per two month period (or €24.56 per month).

I do not believe that there are many people living in houses where the bills are less than that. If there are, it raises other questions. Fuel allowance is €20 per week towards ESB etc. At €80 per month for six months equivalent to €40 per month over 12 months, if there are huge numbers out there with genuine electricity bills below €24.56 per month, it must follow that there are a lot of people making a profit on the fuel allowance from social welfare.

People can't have it every way. If this is a measure really affecting ordinary people living ordinary lives (rather than second homes and empty houses) then we are paying far too much in fuel allowance and a saving can be made there.

How many of the people complaining about this measure would support a cut in fuel allowance?

Godge - this has nothing to do with SW or fuel allowance and I would appreciate it, as the OP, if you did not try and turn this into a discussion on SW. There are more then enough threads on that already.

The fact is - the ESB, which as an organisation is profit making, is penalising people who consume less electricity then they want them to.

It makes no difference what the source of income of these household is - the question is - why should someone be penalised for just consuming less of a product then others use?

Bannasidhe

Priori wrote: »

From what I've read about this charge, apparently it won't apply to Electric Ireland's MicroGen customers (it sounds like your friend would fall into that category). There was a thread about this issue last month - see here.

Electric Ireland have written and told her she will be hit by the charge - as a rural customer she will be expected to pay a daily standing charge of 59.33 cent per day.

View

mike65 wrote: »

I was listening to the Head of Spin at Electric Ireland on RTE News and this change didn't have to go through the regulator so no one was required to examine the justification and presumably if they'd decided this new tariff could be applied on a much high point say 5 Kwh per day that would have sailed through unchecked as well.

It should be pointed out that ESB price rises did have to go through the regulator up until around 10 months ago.

One of the issues raised against changing from that regulated system was that the ESB might target particular individuals were it changed - the regulator dismissed that danger when making their decision to allow the ESB to set their prices without regulatory approval in future.

woodoo

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I am amazed that people are defending this TBH

Some in this country have such a deference to authority it would make you vomit.

Bannasidhe

woodoo wrote: »

Some in this country have such a deference to authority it would make you vomit.

Ain't that the truth.

View

It should be pointed out the Bord Gais has had a "No Standing Charge" contract (with higher unit tariffs) in place for years without needing to resort to any Electric Ireland style "minimum spend" per month options.

View

n97 mini wrote: »

This is originating from ESB Networks, who read all the meters, so expect the other "suppliers" to do something similar.

In fairness this does not apply to the ordinary customer. This only really applies to properties which are idle for long periods of time, and on which ESB will never make it's money back on the capital costs, never mind on the costs of reading the meters every four months.

If it means I'm not subsidising the costs of servicing empty properties, I'm all for it.

So, if your local shops introduce a "minimum spend per shop" charge, you'll have no problem with it?

After all, if you just pop in to buy a litre or two of milk, the fixed cost of having someone behind the till to ring up your doesn't vary, so you wouldn't expect them to subsidise your "pop to the shops", would you? Or would you expect them to price their products properly so you don't get hit with a "standing charge" each time you visit them?

Godge

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Godge - this has nothing to do with SW or fuel allowance and I would appreciate it, as the OP, if you did not try and turn this into a discussion on SW. There are more then enough threads on that already.

The fact is - the ESB, which as an organisation is profit making, is penalising people who consume less electricity then they want them to.

It makes no difference what the source of income of these household is - the question is - why should someone be penalised for just consuming less of a product then others use?

You missed my point. ESB say this affects a small number of customers (c 10%) who have either holiday homes or empty premises and that ordinary people are not affected. The Joe Duffy Show mentality kicks in and people jump up and down screaming and shouting about rip-off Ireland and that this is a disgrace. I use the evidence of the social welfare fuel allowance to show up the discrepancy. Either the ESB is right (and I am inclined to believe them) or the fuel allowance is way, way too high (I believe it is somewhat too high but not massively overhigh as it was designed to cover the extra fuel costs of winter only, not make a profit for the social welfare recipient as the premise of disagreeing with the ESB on the issue of this thread suggests but as you rightly suggest that is a matter for another thread).

I am not saying (in this thread) that the social welfare fuel allowance should be cut by 75%. What I am saying is that the evidence of the rate of social welfare fuel allowance leads me to the conclusion that in general the ESB position that only those who have holiday homes or empty houses are affected is largely true. Using the current rate of social welfare fuel allowance to expose the screams of complaint about the ESB changes as empty rhetoric is a legitimate response.

Godge

View wrote: »

So, if your local shops introduce a "minimum spend per shop" charge, you'll have no problem with it?

After all, if you just pop in to buy a litre or two of milk, the fixed cost of having someone behind the till to ring up your doesn't vary, so you wouldn't expect them to subsidise your "pop to the shops", would you? Or would you expect them to price their products properly so you don't get hit with a "standing charge" each time you visit them?

Many local shops have a "minimum spend per shop" charge if you want to use a laser card or credit card because of the cost of processing the credit card payment. So small purchasers wanting to use cashless facilities are discriminated against - that is a very similar situation to the ESB one.

dvpower

View wrote: »

So, if your local shops introduce a "minimum spend per shop" charge, you'll have no problem with it?

Some shops do already have a minimum charge for credit card payments, for example, which is a better analogy for what Electric Ireland are doing.

Edit ^^ Beat me to it.

Bannasidhe

Godge wrote: »

You missed my point. ESB say this affects a small number of customers (c 10%) who have either holiday homes or empty premises and that ordinary people are not affected. The Joe Duffy Show mentality kicks in and people jump up and down screaming and shouting about rip-off Ireland and that this is a disgrace. I use the evidence of the social welfare fuel allowance to show up the discrepancy. Either the ESB is right (and I am inclined to believe them) or the fuel allowance is way, way too high (I believe it is somewhat too high but not massively overhigh as it was designed to cover the extra fuel costs of winter only, not make a profit for the social welfare recipient as the premise of disagreeing with the ESB on the issue of this thread suggests but as you rightly suggest that is a matter for another thread).

I am not saying (in this thread) that the social welfare fuel allowance should be cut by 75%. What I am saying is that the evidence of the rate of social welfare fuel allowance leads me to the conclusion that in general the ESB position that only those who have holiday homes or empty houses are affected is largely true. Using the current rate of social welfare fuel allowance to expose the screams of complaint about the ESB changes as empty rhetoric is a legitimate response.

There is no need to even introduce the topic of SW and fuel allowance - it is a complete red herring.

There is no justification for charging some people more for consuming less of a product.

I also wouldn't consider circa 130,000 households a small number (10% of 1.3 million domestic customers). Are we seriously expected to believe that there are 130,000 houses/apartments in this country that are unoccupied or only used a few weeks a year as holiday homes?

Even if there are - which I seriously doubt - why should they be forced to pay a penalty for each day they fail to consume enough of a particular product?

Bannasidhe

Godge wrote: »

Many local shops have a "minimum spend per shop" charge if you want to use a laser card or credit card because of the cost of processing the credit card payment. So small purchasers wanting to use cashless facilities are discriminated against - that is a very similar situation to the ESB one.

Those shops are passing on the costs imposed upon them by the banks.

A more accurate analogy would be if a shop charged a non-regular/occasional customer more for milk then a regular customer.

The ESB are adding to the standing order what they believe they are losing by selling less electricity

Tora Bora

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Electric Ireland have written and told her she will be hit by the charge - as a rural customer she will be expected to pay a daily standing charge of 59.33 cent per day.

The attack on rural Ireland continues unabbated. Extra charges for electricity in the standing charges, septic tank charges, closure of rural schools, closure of post offices, closure of Garda stations, closure of public transport links, closure of hospitals.
It's high time to get the sheep and the tractors, on O Connell St, once again.

Godge

Tora Bora wrote: »

The attack on rural Ireland continues unabbated. Extra charges for electricity in the standing charges, septic tank charges, closure of rural schools, closure of post offices, closure of Garda stations, closure of public transport links, closure of hospitals.
It's high time to get the sheep and the tractors, on O Connell St, once again.

I understood two things about the property boom from around 2006/07.

(1) The price of houses had gone too high and that at the very least prices in certain areas, particularly apartments that weren't justified were going to crash. It happened a lot worse than I thought.
(2) People buying and building in rural areas were not paying sufficient attention to the long-term higher costs of living in dispersed rural areas and that there would come a time when it would no longer be possible to sustain the level of subsidy required. It is happening already, sooner than I thought.

Back on topic, calling the ESB move an attack on rural living is a red herring. It is an attack on holiday homes and other unoccupied residences.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Godge

Bannasidhe wrote: »

There is no need to even introduce the topic of SW and fuel allowance - it is a complete red herring.

There is no justification for charging some people more for consuming less of a product.

I also wouldn't consider circa 130,000 households a small number (10% of 1.3 million domestic customers). Are we seriously expected to believe that there are 130,000 houses/apartments in this country that are unoccupied or only used a few weeks a year as holiday homes?

Even if there are - which I seriously doubt - why should they be forced to pay a penalty for each day they fail to consume enough of a particular product?

Well according to Census 2011, the 130,000 is an under-estimate.

http://irelandafternama.wordpress.com/2011/06/30/2011-census-housing-vacancy-data/


Have a look at this blog which links to the census data. You will see that the vacancy rate is at 14.7%, well above the 10% quoted by ESB. If a third of those counted as vacant by the census are not connected to the grid, then the ESB figure is accurate.

So the ESB is relying on hard evidence, the Census evidence backs it up, the level of social welfare fuel allowance provides further support to their argument. This whole debate truly is a matter of people protesting about something for the sake of protesting. Anecdotal evidence of people living up the side of a mountain in Clare does not contradict the facts as presented.

Godge

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Two separate issues.

(1) The ESB should increase the cost to uneconomic vacant houses to subsidise the paying customers.
(2) The ESB should reform its cost structure to reduce the price to all customers. That will only marginally affect (1).


Finally, wages are unjustifiable in ESB but of bigger concern (because wages are a low % of operating costs) is the inefficient power generation, too many small power stations.


http://www.esb.ie/main/downloads/about_esb/esb-summary-regulatory-accounts-2010-english.pdf

To see one example from the ESB accounts, employee costs dropped from 21.4% of operating costs power generation in 2009 to 13.6% in 2010, as the increase in fuel costs over the period increased.

Bannasidhe

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I agree with you - although I would clarify the term 'militant unionization' (and spell it with a 's' ) by saying most Irish unions - led by their overpaid leadership - abandoned their core principles and were happy to hop into bed with Bertie and the lads becoming just another monolithic vested interest sucking off the public teat.

I do think there is a role for unions but I do not see any unions in Ireland fulfilling that role. Bertie bought them.

IMHO, the likes of SIPTU have as much interest in the welfare of their membership as the ESB has in cutting costs before it increases its prices.

Dannyboy83

dvpower wrote: »

Some shops do already have a minimum charge for credit card payments, for example, which is a better analogy for what Electric Ireland are doing.

Edit ^^ Beat me to it.

In this case, I wouldn't agree.
A more accurate analogy would be that you cannot leave the shop without spending a minimum amount of money, regardless of the method of payment (unless I've misunderstood something??)

Heroditas

Godge wrote: »

but of bigger concern (because wages are a low % of operating costs) is the inefficient power generation, too many small power stations.

Only the most efficient power plants are called upon to generate (apart from the peat burning stations but that is because of the security of supply policy still being pursued).
Inefficient plants aren't called upon to generate unless they meet the clearing price to satisfy demand for any particular half hour period.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Bannasidhe

Godge wrote: »

Well according to Census 2011, the 130,000 is an under-estimate.

http://irelandafternama.wordpress.com/2011/06/30/2011-census-housing-vacancy-data/


Have a look at this blog which links to the census data. You will see that the vacancy rate is at 14.7%, well above the 10% quoted by ESB. If a third of those counted as vacant by the census are not connected to the grid, then the ESB figure is accurate.

So the ESB is relying on hard evidence, the Census evidence backs it up, the level of social welfare fuel allowance provides further support to their argument. This whole debate truly is a matter of people protesting about something for the sake of protesting. Anecdotal evidence of people living up the side of a mountain in Clare does not contradict the facts as presented.

As I said it makes no difference if the house is occupied 2 weeks or 52 weeks - the bill payers already pay a standing charge, and if that house is in a rural area they already pay extra for that.

When did the owners of holiday homes become a legitimate target by the way? - they have the 2nd house charge, the extra household charge and now the you are not using enough electricity penalty? And no - I do not own a holiday home.

People are now being compelled to do is pay an additional penalty for low consumption at the exact same time we are being urged - with grant aid for windows, solar panels etc, to become energy efficient.

Plus, I do not think it is outside the realms of possibility that people can have electricity bills of less then 49 euro per 2 month billing period over the summer months. My own (Bord Gais) electricity bill for Jan/Feb came to 83 euro - and I now work from home so the house is occupied all day, I have had the lights on, regular injections of coffee, the broadband going all the time, 2 laptops and a desk top on for approx 12 hours per day, I have done loads of loads of laundry thanks to 2 under fives, even used the tumble dryer at least twice a week, TV, SKY box, PS3, printer rattling away, daily showers, fridge and 2 freezers on 24/7 - all for less then 42 euro a month during winter. I simply have AAA rated appliances and a very energy efficient house.

When I worked outside the home I was out from 7 a.m to at least 8 p.m - in the winter my electricity bill was never more then 50 euro for 2 months - for which I blame the millions of fairy lights on the xmas tree - and the blizzard/flood that hit Cork.

Bannasidhe

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

No argument from me on that - I'm from a generation that still insures we have a supply of candles and torches in easily accessible locations 'just in case'. A childhood where ESB strikes were commonplace will have that effect.

dvpower

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

In this case, I wouldn't agree.
A more accurate analogy would be that you cannot leave the shop without spending a minimum amount of money, regardless of the method of payment (unless I've misunderstood something??)

When I sign up to ESB, they have an ongoing cost of maintaining my account regardless of my usage (reading my meter and sending me bills etc). So If I sign up and don't buy anything, they are making a loss on my account. Its not the same for a local shop.

But the ESB already have a standing charge, so people who are using hardly any electricity at all are already paying a fortune for it per unit - I can't see the sense in increasing it for very low users.

Godge

Bannasidhe wrote: »

As I said it makes no difference if the house is occupied 2 weeks or 52 weeks - the bill payers already pay a standing charge, and if that house is in a rural area they already pay extra for that.

When did the owners of holiday homes become a legitimate target by the way? - they have the 2nd house charge, the extra household charge and now the you are not using enough electricity penalty? And no - I do not own a holiday home.

People are now being compelled to do is pay an additional penalty for low consumption at the exact same time we are being urged - with grant aid for windows, solar panels etc, to become energy efficient.

Plus, I do not think it is outside the realms of possibility that people can have electricity bills of less then 49 euro per 2 month billing period over the summer months. My own (Bord Gais) electricity bill for Jan/Feb came to 83 euro - and I now work from home so the house is occupied all day, I have had the lights on, regular injections of coffee, the broadband going all the time, 2 laptops and a desk top on for approx 12 hours per day, I have done loads of loads of laundry thanks to 2 under fives, even used the tumble dryer at least twice a week, TV, SKY box, PS3, printer rattling away, daily showers, fridge and 2 freezers on 24/7 - all for less then 42 euro a month during winter. I simply have AAA rated appliances and a very energy efficient house.

When I worked outside the home I was out from 7 a.m to at least 8 p.m - in the winter my electricity bill was never more then 50 euro for 2 months - for which I blame the millions of fairy lights on the xmas tree - and the blizzard/flood that hit Cork.

Yes, you have your anecdotal evidence of your own electricity bill to back you up.

But as I have pointed out already

- the census figures show 14.7% unoccupied houses which backs the ESB up
- the level of social welfare fuel allowance clearly implies that the average bill is much much higher than the cut-off for the higher standing charge which again backs the ESB up

These are hard facts, they can't be argued away just because your electricity bill is lower or because mine is higher or because Joe's down the road is somewhere in-between. All of the evidence shows that this is just another whinge by people who don't like the way the country's problems are finally being sorted out.

Bannasidhe

Godge wrote: »

Yes, you have your anecdotal evidence of your own electricity bill to back you up.

But as I have pointed out already

- the census figures show 14.7% unoccupied houses which backs the ESB up
- the level of social welfare fuel allowance clearly implies that the average bill is much much higher than the cut-off for the higher standing charge which again backs the ESB up

These are hard facts, they can't be argued away just because your electricity bill is lower or because mine is higher or because Joe's down the road is somewhere in-between. All of the evidence shows that this is just another whinge by people who don't like the way the country's problems are finally being sorted out.

How on earth is this an example of sorting out the country's problems?

This is a problem with a semi-state which overall makes a substantial annual profit attempting to penalise those who do not consume enough of their product?

It doesn't matter how many holiday homes there are - the people who own them already pay a standing order regardless of whether they use electricity or not. There is no justification for adding an additional charge for not using enough electricity to make the balance sheet of one branch of a bloated - and overall profitable to the tune of €1.38bn - semi-state company look better.

leeroybrown

I see two issues here:

1) Electric Ireland are clearly subsiding their own profits, inefficient organisation and Union/pay issues out of consumers pockets. This I disagree with.

2) Anyone who says that this is an attack on the ordinary breadline consumer is talking out of their backside. Unless you're living the life of a hermit you'd seriously struggle to get your electricity usage under the low usage threshold in a primary residence.