No incentives to cut usage
WE READ with anger about rises in the cost of electricity bills in the near future ("Power surge to price surge: prepare for an expensive education, says expert", The Age, 3/1). As we were approaching retirement, two years ago we looked for all the ways to cut our utility bills.
We hired a consultant to do an energy audit. We installed solar hot water, nine solar panels for electricity, a roof ventilation fan, thicker ceiling insulation, blinds on the east side, and a pergola with grape vines and shade mesh on the west. To save water we installed two tanks, one of which is attached to the laundry and toilets. We also had our laundry, shower and hand basins plumbed to outside to use the grey water on the garden. All this was at considerable expense to ourselves with very little repaid in rebates. Now we are told it is the service charge that is to increase, not the price of consumption just like with water bills.
Where is the incentive for people to use less electricity and less water when they will not benefit financially. If the carbon tax were to be spent on rebates to encourage people to cut their emissions, then I could see it as a worthwhile tax. It seems like the only reason we increase service charges is to keep the money in the pockets of the big power and water companies.
Glenda and David Nicholson, Warranwood
Lucrative business
THE proliferation in new electricity retailers, which do nothing more in the supply chain than buy electricity from distributors and bill customers, would suggest that selling electricity is a lucrative business.
Governments don't fully appreciate that rapidly rising energy costs, which are largely non-discretionary spending, are the biggest threat to families maintaining a reasonable standard of living, and unless they do something about it (and I don't have the answer) the ballot box will send them the message.
Robin Schokman, Doncaster
Invest in infrastructure
GREAT news that the "smart meters" are to penalise us for using power when it's really hot or really cold. This is a typical government response to not being willing to spend the money on sufficient infrastructure to provide peak-load power. It's the sort of "initiative" public service bonuses are made of: "Let's not provide more power, let's just stop people using power when they most need to."
On that basis we can expect the price of medical consultations to soon double if there's more than three people already waiting (there are not enough doctors so a disincentive is required). I believe the operative phrase is "government-sanctioned extortion". Victorians should refer to this abrogation of responsibility whenever the state government crows about the size of its surplus. Surpluses are simple if you don't spend the money you rake in.
John Henry, Niddrie
Price of civilisation
THE debate continues on who should pay for burying power lines. Paul Bugeja (Letters, 3/1) misses a simple point regarding civilisation. We all choose to live in a society unless one subscribes to the neo-liberal point of view where we share expenses and benefits as evenly as possible across that society.
Those of us living in rural areas, through our taxes, subsidise metropolitan public transport, superior-quality roads, public schools and hospitals and a concentrated wealth of museums and art galleries. These benefits are not so readily available to country dwellers. The desalination plant at Wonthaggi is to supply Melbourne but those of us living close by, in an area of abundant rainfall, will be forced to contribute to the cost of the plant through increased water rates. Insurance premiums have increased substantially following the Black Saturday fires and the recent floods when, again, our area was not affected.
To suggest that one area, which has suffered a cruel fate, should be totally responsible for the payment of preventative measures for future safety, is mean-spirited and ignorant of what a fair and just society should be.
Tim Wilson, Inverloch
Frequently Asked Questions about this Article…
Why are some electricity bills rising even if the price of consumption isn't going up?
According to the article, many households are seeing increases in the fixed service charge portion of their electricity bills rather than the per‑unit consumption price. That means even if you use the same amount of electricity, your bill can still rise because distributors and retailers are charging higher standing or service fees.
Do smart meters help me save on electricity or do they just penalise peak‑time usage?
The article suggests smart meters are being used to penalise customers for using power during extreme hot or cold periods. Critics quoted see this as a way to discourage peak‑time usage instead of investing in more peak‑load infrastructure, so the benefit for everyday households may be limited if the goal is simply to shift or penalise consumption.
If I've already invested in solar panels, insulation or water tanks, will higher service charges negate my savings?
The piece describes homeowners who spent considerable money on solar hot water, solar electricity panels, insulation and water tanks but received very little in rebates. Because service charges are rising, those fixed costs can reduce the financial payoff of such efficiency investments — the article questions the financial incentive for households to cut consumption under that pricing structure.
Are energy‑saving home improvements still a good idea despite low rebates?
The article reports that homeowners undertook measures like energy audits, solar panels, improved insulation and greywater plumbing at significant personal expense and saw minimal rebate support. While these actions can reduce usage, the article highlights concerns that rising fixed charges and limited rebates weaken the direct financial incentive for such upgrades.
How do rising energy and water costs affect household standards of living?
The article warns that rapidly rising energy costs — largely non‑discretionary spending — are a major threat to families maintaining a reasonable standard of living. Letter writers argue governments need to address these costs or risk voter backlash, since higher essential bills squeeze household budgets.
What does the proliferation of new electricity retailers mean for investors interested in utilities?
The article notes a surge in new electricity retailers that mainly buy power from distributors and bill customers. That proliferation is presented as evidence that selling electricity can be a lucrative business, though these retailers do not operate across the full supply chain.
Should governments spend more on energy infrastructure rather than using price signals to change behaviour?
Several letters in the article argue governments are opting to penalise peak usage (for example via smart meters) instead of investing in sufficient peak‑load infrastructure. The view expressed is that infrastructure investment would address supply limits, whereas penalties simply discourage usage when people need power most.
Who should pay for projects like burying power lines or regional desalination — and is it fair?
The article highlights debate over who should pay to bury power lines, with one perspective stressing that living in a society means sharing costs and benefits broadly. Examples cited include rural areas effectively subsidising metropolitan services and nearby communities being asked to contribute to infrastructure (like the Wonthaggi desalination plant) that primarily benefits a city — raising questions of fairness and social responsibility.
Call 1300 880 160
Start a chat
Schedule a call
