Electric Ireland - charging for not using enough electricity.

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.

Godge

Bannasidhe wrote: »

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.

Well, yes there is a good reason for it. At the moment, according to the ESB's figures, the holiday home owners are being subsidised by the rest of their customers. If the changes means that a holiday home owner living in Spain or the Isle of Man has to pay extra when he visits his home in West Cork or Connemara, then I say great. The rest of us, those working and living modest lives in Ireland (and who can't afford a second home), will not have an increase and so the cost of living for those working in Ireland does not go up. The rich who own holiday homes or can afford to live elsewhere while their home is unoccupied (retired to Spain, maybe?) will have to pay more and while it is a small measure, we need lots of small measures like this to fix this country to ensure that the ordinary working person paying their bills is looked after.

If it is about profits rather than reducing the subsidy then ESB increasing profits and thereby dividends to taxpayer at the expense of rich people who have more than one house either here or abroad can only be a good result in my opinion.

Bannasidhe

Godge wrote: »

Well, yes there is a good reason for it. At the moment, according to the ESB's figures, the holiday home owners are being subsidised by the rest of their customers. If the changes means that a holiday home owner living in Spain or the Isle of Man has to pay extra when he visits his home in West Cork or Connemara, then I say great. The rest of us, those working and living modest lives in Ireland (and who can't afford a second home), will not have an increase and so the cost of living for those working in Ireland does not go up. The rich who own holiday homes or can afford to live elsewhere while their home is unoccupied (retired to Spain, maybe?) will have to pay more and while it is a small measure, we need lots of small measures like this to fix this country to ensure that the ordinary working person paying their bills is looked after.

If it is about profits rather than reducing the subsidy then ESB increasing profits and thereby dividends to taxpayer at the expense of rich people who have more than one house either here or abroad can only be a good result in my opinion.

We shall have to agree to disagree - I think the whole '2nd home' angle is nothing more then a divide and conquer spin being used by an inefficient, bloated yet overall highly profitable semi-state to avoid dealing with its internal issues as a way of reducing costs and seeking to place the burden instead on those it sees as unlikely to garner much public support.

ESB customers are subsiding the massive salaries and the pension black hole -personally I am very glad I made the big switch.

Icepick

Switch to Airtricity or BG?

BrianD3

I use less than 2 units per day for most of the year. The exception would be during winter months when the heating is on, even then I don't stray far above 2 units per day. I live alone and work during the day and when I finish work do exercise and other activities rather than slobbing out in front of a 60 inch plasma TV watching soaps and reality TV for 5 hours.

The only appliance that is on during the day is the fridge which uses very little if it's not opened every 5 minutes. Items such as the microwave and kettle are 800 and 2000 watts but are only on for a few minutes per day.

Everyone's circumstances are different and TBH I don't give a crap if the average ESB customer uses x units per day or if some clown thinks he's subsidising me because he chooses to consume more than me.

The average person is an idiot and clueless about their electricity usage among other things. On one side there's those that waste electricity, on the other are those who get overly excited about turning off a 20 watt bulb if they leave the room for 5 minutes.

I've also had arguments in work with people who wanted workers to contibute a certain amount to make a cup of tea in the canteen and they based their calculation on a 2000 watt kettle using 2 units per cup :rolleyes:

K-9

Bannasidhe wrote: »

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.

Well obviously your bill will be higher during the winter and so the average will come out more than €49 bi-monthly.

Your bills being that low when you worked would be a worry. Surely they can't penalise people for having energy efficient appliances, bulbs, insulation etc.? Exclusions should be put in for energy efficient users, otherwise what's the point?

Head The Wall

Godge wrote: »

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.

The percentage of their costs may have decreased but has the actual costs of the pay and pensions decreased?

Pete_Cavan

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.

Firstly, yes it does make a difference if the house is occupied 2 weeks or 52 weeks. If it is only occupied for 2 weeks, ESB still incur the same costs in relation to reading meters, billing, etc. but have no way to recover these costs.

Secondly, if the standing charge does not cover the costs it is intended to cover, the options are (i) increase standing charge across the board or (ii) increase the standing charge to those who are preventing the standing charge from covering the costs it is intended to cover.

woodoo

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

They are already paying a standing charge. What is that for?

They can insist on emailed bills.

woodoo

leeroybrown wrote: »

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.

For those of you cheerleading this charge. They could increase it slowly over the years. Its just gouging from a semi state company.

Bannasidhe

K-9 wrote: »

Well obviously your bill will be higher during the winter and so the average will come out more than €49 bi-monthly.

Your bills being that low when you worked would be a worry. Surely they can't penalise people for having energy efficient appliances, bulbs, insulation etc.? Exclusions should be put in for energy efficient users, otherwise what's the point?

But Electricity Ireland will not average it out over the year.

Their website makes it clear the charge is calculated per two month billing period:

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 I can see people out at work all day could find themselves hit by this over the course of the summer - it strikes me as being a reverse of the ol data plan gouge used by our mobile phone providers. An app on the smartphone sends the user unknowingly over their data limit and wham - extra charges. Here it's ESB customer uses little electricity May/June/July/Aug and wham - extra charges.