Water charges revisited?

dense · 20-07-2018 02:05PM

blanch152 wrote: »

You make an excellent argument for metering, especially as these figures show we could save 25% of the water supplied to houses. Would have made a big difference this summer.

That cant be assumed at all because we don't know the total average daily demand for water.

GreeBo · 20-07-2018 02:08PM

dense wrote: »

Is there any good reason why you think IW, which was intended on being a self funding independent single utility applying for market loans should not assume a financial position of taking more revenue in than it is paying out?

The credit ratings agencies would laugh at it.

Self-funding doesnt mean For Profit.

GreeBo · 20-07-2018 02:10PM

dense wrote: »

That cant be assumed at all because we don't know the total average daily demand for water.

Which is in itself an excellent reason for having meters!

Its almost like trying to make any decisions without the data gathered by meters is pointless.

dense · 20-07-2018 02:51PM

GreeBo wrote: »

Self-funding doesnt mean For Profit.

I don't think anyone has said it does.

What's the justification for wanting IW to be a loss making water services utility, and how would it best advised to spend these losses it's going to be permanently generating?

dense · 20-07-2018 02:58PM

GreeBo wrote: »

Which is in itself an excellent reason for having meters!

Its almost like trying to make any decisions without the data gathered by meters is pointless.

If you get the data what value is it?
No one knows what the average national demand is to begin with.

GreeBo · 20-07-2018 03:05PM

dense wrote: »

I don't think anyone has said it does.

What's the justification for wanting IW to be a loss making water services utility, and how would it best advised to spend these losses it's going to be permanently generating?

There are 3 (broad) options
1) Make a loss and be subsidized by Government (effectively where we have been up until now with LA and are still with IW)
2) Make a profit
3) Break even (possibly with limited subsidy for areas where cost far outstrips income)

Why do you ignore option 3?

dense wrote: »

If you get the data what value is it?
No one knows what the average national demand is to begin with.

Seriously?
Your first sentence answers your question.
The value of the data is that it exactly telss you what the average national demand is!

charlie14 · 20-07-2018 03:15PM

aido79 wrote: »

Can we agree to use these figures? They seem more believable to me:

https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/www.rte.ie/amp/870162/

From your link it is difficult to see where the CSO got their figure from, because if it was from Irish Water then they are way off what Irish Water has claimed from the readings of 880,000 meters. ?

Do you believe Irish Water were telling porkies with their figure.
If they were, then I cannot see why they would, but then perhaps you have an explanation ?

Between yourself and myself of late I am having doubts over some of the CSO`s figures. Not alone in that as Eurostat felt the same the Market Corporation Test. Throw in "Leprechaun Economics" and you would seriously wonder.
I can see where the could be ok in areas such as average house occupancy from a nationwide census filled in by every household in the State, but other than that their recent record hasn`t been much to write home about.

GreeBo · 20-07-2018 03:21PM

charlie14 wrote: »

From your link it is difficult to see where the CSO got their figure from, because if it was from Irish Water then they are way off what Irish Water has claimed from the readings of 880,000 meters. ?

Do you believe Irish Water were telling porkies with their figure.
If they were, then I cannot see why they would, but then perhaps you have an explanation ?

Between yourself and myself of late I am having doubts over some of the CSO`s figures. Not alone in that as Eurostat felt the same the Market Corporation Test. Throw in "Leprechaun Economics" and you would seriously wonder.
I can see where the could be ok in areas such as average house occupancy from a nationwide census filled in by every household in the State, but other than that their recent record hasn`t been much to write home about.

I think everyone was working on estimations based on averages, at best.
With the best will in the world this is guestimation and any errors are multiplied. You can easily be way over or under reality by just being out a tiny bit on some estimates.

Hence why we need meters to determine actual demand.

charlie14 · 20-07-2018 03:33PM

GreeBo wrote: »

I havent moved on to anything.
As I have already said: Meters measure water.
What you or anyone else chooses to do with the data a meter delivers is irrelevant to the meter.
ONE of the things the data (should) be used for is charging by usage
Another is detecting leaks.

This thread is not about what IW *were* doing. Its called "water charges revisited"
Move on and try to fix the problem.

Useful. So you are only going to engage with posters who have read eveyone of your previous posts?
Handy for debating that.

Give me an other reason why people are refusing to pay for what they use then?

Again, (and for the last time)
Meters on the consumer side allow you to make sense out of the district/area meter readings.
Without them your area meters are worthless as you cannot distinguish between use and loss.
Unless you are going to rely on averages of averages of EU averages.
I'd rather billions were spent based on facts and not based on meaningless averages.

From IW

"20 million litres per day, is as a result of leaks at just 1,100 properties."

OR 12.6l/min.

Perhaps, like most toilets since about 1970, the leaks just go back into the waste system and no one sees them?

But you can be bloody sure that people will go looking for them IF they were being charged.

I now longer have any interest in wasting time and effort going over the same old ground that was covered long ago where most of what you keep repeating shown then to be rubbish or totally uneconomical regarding metering an leakage.
You are in favour of charging for water by way of metering. That is your prerogative, but the whole premise is dead due to political arrogance, cronyism, financial waste and lack of public support etc.
It is now a toxic wasteland that no political party with any hopes of having government influence for at least a generation would go near with even a very long barge pole.
Difficult for some pro poster to take I can understand, but I`m afraid they are just going to have to suck it up and move on.

In case I didn`t make it clear. I have no interest in chasing around, not just a rabbit hole, but a warren with you any further.

Goodbye and best of luck.

GreeBo · 20-07-2018 03:35PM

charlie14 wrote: »

I now longer have any interest in wasting time and effort going over the same old ground that was covered long ago where most of what you keep repeating shown then to be rubbish or totally uneconomical regarding metering an leakage.
You are in favour of charging for water by way of metering. That is your prerogative, but the whole premise is dead due to political arrogance, cronyism, financial waste and lack of public support etc.
It is now a toxic wasteland that no political party with any hopes of having government influence for at least a generation would go near with even a very long barge pole.
Difficult for some pro poster to take I can understand, but I`m afraid they are just going to have to suck it up and move on.

In case I didn`t make it clear. I have no interest in chasing around, not just a rabbit hole, but a warren with you any further.

Goodbye and best of luck.

So you disagree with metering in principal or just because of how it was handled politically?

Is metering not working perfectly well for Gas and Electricity?

In order for "us" to solve the problem of water in Ireland we need to come up with the correct solution, leaving aside politics and the past.

I would have assumed that everyone would be in favour of paying by usage rather than a flat rate, but perhaps I'm wrong?

charlie14 · 20-07-2018 03:46PM

GreeBo wrote: »

So you disagree with metering in principal or just because of how it was handled politically?

Is metering not working perfectly well for Gas and Electricity?

In order for "us" to solve the problem of water in Ireland we need to come up with the correct solution, leaving aside politics and the past.

I would have assumed that everyone would be in favour of paying by usage rather than a flat rate, but perhaps I'm wrong?

What is it you fail to get ?

I have told you i no wish to have any further discussion with you
In fairness I believe that is understandable considering that someone that is so keen on meters and all the uses they believe the have, will not even accept the data publish based on readings from 880,000 of them.

Goodbye.

GreeBo · 20-07-2018 03:49PM

charlie14 wrote: »

What is it you fail to get ?

I have told you i no wish to have any further discussion with you
In fairness I believe that is understandable considering that someone that is so keen on meters and all the uses they believe the have, will not even accept the data publish based on readings from 880,000 of them.

Goodbye.

So you dont want meters because you dont want to pay based on what you use.
ergo you want someone else to pay for it.

Yet you have an issue when I point out that makes you a scroungers.
Which is it?

charlie14 · 20-07-2018 03:55PM

GreeBo wrote: »

So you dont want meters because you dont want to pay based on what you use.
ergo you want someone else to pay for it.

Yet you have an issue when I point out that makes you a scroungers.
Which is it?

I have told you on a number off occasions now I have no interest in having any further discussion with you based on the reasons I gave. You can also add your scrounger remark to that list.
I have never reported anyone in my time here, but if you are going to continue harassing then it is something I am going to have to seriously consider.

dense · 20-07-2018 04:02PM

GreeBo wrote: »

There are 3 (broad) options
1) Make a loss and be subsidized by Government (effectively where we have been up until now with LA and are still with IW)
2) Make a profit
3) Break even (possibly with limited subsidy for areas where cost far outstrips income)

Why do you ignore option 3?

Utilities do not pitch for successfully discharging their responsibilities to external billion euro investments on the premise of "breaking even".

It's just too risky. It is planned to separate it from ervia in the next couple of years.
There has to be something in the mix to persuade creditors that they should evaluate it as as being a viable concern.

It cant be seen to be flying by the seat of its pants, hopefully breaking even at every fiancial year end, with no profit to meet its credit commitments or ambitions.

Its nonsensical to think otherwise.

dense · 20-07-2018 04:07PM

GreeBo wrote: »

Seriously?
Your first sentence answers your question.
The value of the data is that it exactly telss you what the average national demand is!

It would only tells you what household demand is. It wouldn't tell you a mite about anything else.

Why spend another half billion to tell us what we already know, 250lpd?

GreeBo · 20-07-2018 04:08PM

charlie14 wrote: »

I have told you on a number off occasions now I have no interest in having any further discussion with you based on the reasons I gave. You can also add your scrounger remark to that list.
I have never reported anyone in my time here, but if you are going to continue harassing then it is something I am going to have to seriously consider.

Harassing?

:rolleyes:

It's a discussion board, I'm posting messages on it.

I think you need to build a bridge and get over yourself.

Chips Lovell · 20-07-2018 04:12PM

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

There's far too many people taking swipes at other posters rather than engaging in debate. If you're looking for trench warfare, this isn't the place.

Be nice. Play the ball, not the man please.

This is clearly being ignored. Locked for review.

Chips Lovell · 20-07-2018 04:33PM

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Already did, several times. Is this a new tactic of water charge proponents? Constantly asking for the same answers ad nauesum?

charlie14 wrote: »

Not really.

Once pro posters back in the day on the mega thread saw the way the wind was blowing on metering charges, it became practically the norm.

GreeBo wrote: »

Then your bill is all down to what you use and everyone wins.
Well everyone other than the scroungers who want someone else to pay their way of course.

Hitman3000 wrote: »

See this is where everything you say can be ignored.

Good loser wrote: »

You're very gullible Johnny.

You excoriate FG and have this overwhelming reverence for 'their' committee.

Supposedly! Because you never needed any committee to convince you anyway, did you?

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Welcome back G.L I thought you'd taken the huff after I had to school you on the annual subsistence grants those on private wells/GWS were entitled to each year.

Here you are posting again about a subject you seem to know so little about.

GreeBo wrote: »

So you dont want meters because you dont want to pay based on what you use.
ergo you want someone else to pay for it.

Yet you have an issue when I point out that makes you a scroungers.
Which is it?

charlie14 wrote: »

I have told you on a number off occasions now I have no interest in having any further discussion with you based on the reasons I gave. You can also add your scrounger remark to that list.
I have never reported anyone in my time here, but if you are going to continue harassing then it is something I am going to have to seriously consider.

GreeBo wrote: »

Harassing?:rolleyes:

It's a discussion board, I'm posting messages on it.

I think you need to build a bridge and get over yourself.

We're not going to have this thread go the way other threads on water charges have gone. You had your chance to discuss this civilly and you ignored it.

Hitman3000, charlie14, GreeBo, Good loser, Johnny Dogs: Do not post on this thread again.

Thank you

blanch152 · 20-07-2018 04:58PM

dense wrote: »

Utilities do not pitch for successfully discharging their responsibilities to external billion euro investments on the premise of "breaking even".

It's just too risky. It is planned to separate it from ervia in the next couple of years.
There has to be something in the mix to persuade creditors that they should evaluate it as as being a viable concern.

It cant be seen to be flying by the seat of its pants, hopefully breaking even at every fiancial year end, with no profit to meet its credit commitments or ambitions.

Its nonsensical to think otherwise.

Breaking even would include repayment of any debt. That would be sustainable.

dense · 20-07-2018 05:13PM

blanch152 wrote: »

Breaking even would include repayment of any debt. That would be sustainable.

You cannot break even unless your profits, there's that word again are equal to your costs.
If you encounter an unexpected cost, there has to be a backstop somewhere.

A business must be profitable for it to be sustainable.

blanch152 · 20-07-2018 05:39PM

dense wrote: »

You cannot break even unless your profits, there's that word again are equal to your costs.
If you encounter an unexpected cost, there has to be a backstop somewhere.

A business must be profitable for it to be sustainable.

You break even if your revenue is equal to your costs, there is no profit.

dense · 20-07-2018 06:47PM

blanch152 wrote: »

You break even if your revenue is equal to your costs, there is no profit.

Not so, because Ervia is claiming Irish Water made a profit of €54m in 2016 in it's own financial report.

https://www.google.ie/url?q=https://www.water.ie/about-us/freedom-of-information/model-publication-scheme/financial-information/ervia_annual_report_2016.pdf&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwiJuJvym67cAhWmK8AKHSPmARsQFggRMAI&usg=AOvVaw1-zKZxwsHN7arLLRWWSplV

It must make a profit, otherwise it's a dead duck.

FreudianSlippers · 23-07-2018 09:38AM

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Yeah, sorry I understand you were backing my post , it's not a believable figure tbh, but I'm not suggesting Tommy is lying.

I think he might come back and clarify later that he mixed up minute with hour, or even that there was a rogue zero in there, and it should have been 0.1 a minute.

The irony for me is that people will just thank and believe a post without doing the sums because it would suit a narrative, yet they'll call people out on things that are in the public domain because it doesn't.

Hopefully Tommy will reappear and clear everything up.

It's not 0.1lpm, it's 1lpm - I posted the evidence of that.

One litre per minute.

That's a significant amount of water.

FreudianSlippers · 23-07-2018 09:40AM

charlie14 wrote: »

Nope, and I have no interest in going down rabbit holes with you or anyone else on that ECJ ruling.

Already done to death on the old threads.
Posted that for anyone that is not aware of it and up to themselves if they want to peruse it and make up their own minds.

You just posted jibberish and that isn't a case on the ECJ website. You can get a link if you want, but you won't.

FreudianSlippers · 23-07-2018 09:41AM

dense wrote: »

Recent US research published suggests that using less and less water will mean bigger, not smaller bills for customers:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1936-704X.2017.03237.x

Seems to make sense so I don't see how it will be any different here.

Nobody has suggested that Ireland will become the US and move away from the CRU model of pricing.

FreudianSlippers · 23-07-2018 09:46AM

dense wrote: »

It has to be if it's going to successfully exist as an independent off the books utility with the necessary accounts available to demonstrate to creditors its ability not only to borrow substantial amounts, but to repay them.

If it's not going to be a profit oriented business, no one is going to extend proper loan facilities to it.

It's already had a major false start with Eurostat, so it cannot afford to send another signal showing it continues to have half baked business and ownership plans to the EU , the next one will have to show it's a real moneymaker.

This poster keeps showing up to out them self as one of the biggest spoofers that has ever posted on this forum.

This is one of the most insane and unrealistic things that has ever been said about semi-state or state subsidized utilities.

It manifestly ignores the fact that it was always intended and is still the case that a significant amount of tax goes to subsidize Irish Water, it shows a complete lack of knowledge of the banking sector vis-a-vis utility lending, and it misrepresents the Eurostat findings.

Chips Lovell · 23-07-2018 09:49AM

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

You just posted jibberish....

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

This poster keeps showing up to out them self as one of the biggest spoofers that has ever posted on this forum.

Banned

James Brown · 23-07-2018 02:20PM

GreeBo wrote: »

Do you have numbers to back that up?
According to IW in 2017 we had 47% leaks, they have since fixed some.
Why are you ignoring the leaks that are on the customers side when IW says they are a significant % of leaks?
You have decided that the "50%" number that is bandied about is all in the mains, this is incorrect and wrong.

Why do you think it went elsewhere?
The water system, while in desperate need of repair, was still satisfying demand unlike, say the health system.
"The con"? Please. :rolleyes:

Again using the magical money that comes from where exactly?
We wouldnt have any problem if we had the money.
IW is the vehicle setup to get this money.
Which part of the above dont you understand?

Oh so when it suits your "argument" you agree with IW? Useful that.
...

With all due respect, all this has been covered and I can't tell if you are simply not knowledgeable or acting the mess.

We've money for everything I listed, but the cost of LA's actively upgrading and maintaining over the decades, at a fraction, requires magic money? That's just childishness.
Simply pointing out both IW and myself disagree with you. Not sure where you are getting your anecdotal facts from.

James Brown · 23-07-2018 02:26PM

aido79 wrote: »

The original idea for Irish Water was good. The mistake they made was changing the plan along the way.

It depends on how we are defining mistake. The plethora or bad decisions, (which they did not deem bad) led to them needing to heed public opinion, despite their best efforts to skirt it. It should be noted that their changes were them trying to 'fix' a plan and quango nobody wanted. The changes, although pushed into being by the people, were the making of the then government.

dense · 23-07-2018 03:31PM

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Nobody has suggested that Ireland will become the US and move away from the CRU model of pricing.

Yet.

Water charges revisited?

Comments