A rip-off? (26 Jun, 2018)

Have your say on today's Aardvark Daily column

Re: A rip-off by an electricity supplier? That can't be righ

Postby Perry » Tue Jun 26, 2018 2:48 pm

hagfish wrote:Surely provision of electricity should be central to an electricity provider's business.

In today's topsy-turvy world - it seems not.
Perry
 
Posts: 457
Joined: Thu May 08, 2014 9:31 pm

Re: A rip-off? (26 Jun, 2018)

Postby phill » Tue Jun 26, 2018 3:05 pm

management junkets ..staff bonus issues .. management performance bonuses ... management pay rises and rises ..
all take there toll on the bottom line
its no wonder they are struggling and need hidden payments to survive .. well at least till the next round of bonuses and management pay rises
( ,,,,,,,, ....... A E I O U use em sparingly theres probably not enough )
User avatar
phill
 
Posts: 1491
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2014 8:31 pm

Re: A rip-off? (26 Jun, 2018)

Postby Perry » Tue Jun 26, 2018 3:14 pm

Not to mention stealth tax 'dividends' to the W'gton woodenheads.
Perry
 
Posts: 457
Joined: Thu May 08, 2014 9:31 pm

Re: A rip-off? (26 Jun, 2018)

Postby gregmcc » Tue Jun 26, 2018 6:18 pm

Usually when a developer contributes to the cost of infrastructure it is for the use of only the new development, in this case it's for the benefit of the street.

It seems like it is Vector making excessive charges, no one else can supply power at network level, what choice is there, it is also the reason why we pay retail for electricity, the generator, the national grid operator, the local network operator and the retailer all add their mark up on electricity to grow and maintain there business, they should be using their margin to pay for the upgrade.
gregmcc
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Thu May 08, 2014 3:04 pm

Re: A rip-off? (26 Jun, 2018)

Postby latewings » Wed Jun 27, 2018 8:57 am

In some respects I'm going to side with Vector on this.

Reason. Who pays for the infrastructure if the Developer doesn't? Vector does.

Who benefits the most? The Developer.

Who pays for the upgrade? Vector.

Who pays Vector?
latewings
 
Posts: 308
Joined: Thu May 08, 2014 10:18 am

Re: A rip-off? (26 Jun, 2018)

Postby hagfish » Wed Jun 27, 2018 9:03 am

latewings wrote:In some respects I'm going to side with Vector on this.

Reason. Who pays for the infrastructure if the Developer doesn't? Vector does.

Who benefits the most? The Developer.

Who pays for the upgrade? Vector.

Who pays Vector?


The good folk who move into Snooty Climes Gated Community, and buy energy for the next 200 years to run their cigar humidors.
hagfish
 
Posts: 651
Joined: Thu May 08, 2014 10:28 am

Re: A rip-off? (26 Jun, 2018)

Postby phill » Wed Jun 27, 2018 9:07 am

my thoughts and breakdown
obviously there are points for each side ( pay / dont pay )
at this point it looks like the developer carries the complete costs .. thats plainly not right as others benefit from the change and he owns none of the infrastructure he is paying for

all lines to the development from the nearest pole / distribution point ( if underground ) ... developer
labour for swapping out the transformer .. developer
cost of transformer .. vector
( ,,,,,,,, ....... A E I O U use em sparingly theres probably not enough )
User avatar
phill
 
Posts: 1491
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2014 8:31 pm

Re: A rip-off? (26 Jun, 2018)

Postby aardvark_admin » Wed Jun 27, 2018 9:28 am

I still say that this situation is more like your local garage coming to you and saying "we're running out of room in the workshop so if you want your car serviced you'll have to pay for an extension to be built".
aardvark_admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3099
Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 2:10 pm

Re: A rip-off? (26 Jun, 2018)

Postby latewings » Wed Jun 27, 2018 9:30 am

Devil's Advocate time.

Vector put in equipment for the number of dwellings in the area. That's already in place. This Developer is adding more houses to the area (under the unitary plan probably) that exceeds the demand expected by the existing equipment.

The Developer is trying to maximise profit by placing as many dwellings as allowed onto the site. As part of that plan he should have approached Vector to see if the existing infrastructure met the increased demand.

So is this a Project management oversight? Are we getting both sides of the story. Did the Developer already know about the power issue and is trying to plead a case in the public arena that he's hard done by?
latewings
 
Posts: 308
Joined: Thu May 08, 2014 10:18 am

Re: A rip-off? (26 Jun, 2018)

Postby Malcolm » Wed Jun 27, 2018 9:39 am

The margin is used to pay for the maintenance and planned upgrades in the asset management plan published by all of the lines companies. Any upgrades outside of those is paid for by the requester. This is standard practice over the entire country and every other developer pays for it. It is the same if they require a new road in a subdivision, the developer pays for it and then hands it over to the relevant authority for maintenance etc. The alternative would be for the developers to wait at least five years for the power hookup as it would need to be put in to the plan for network upgrades and budgeted accordingly. Then everyone would have to pay a whole lot more for their power just so someone else can turn a profit subdividing their land.
Malcolm
 
Posts: 286
Joined: Thu May 08, 2014 9:43 am

PreviousNext

Return to Today's column

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron