Page 3 of 3

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

PostPosted: Wed Jun 27, 2018 9:41 am
by aardvark_admin
And on the other side of the coin... Vector now has the opportunity to sell more power -- so it also needs to provide the infrastructure to allow those sales and the revenues they generate.

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

PostPosted: Wed Jun 27, 2018 9:46 am
by Malcolm
Vector is a lines company, technically they don't sell power they sell access to the transport medium. As previously stated they operate under strict rules about what they can charge for and how much they can charge. Any network upgrades outside of the asset management plan they publish are paid for by the requester, the lines charge you see on your bill covers the maintenance and upgrades to this infrastructure as published in the AMP. This falls outside of it and Vector are required to on bill for cost recovery.

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

PostPosted: Wed Jun 27, 2018 9:58 am
by aardvark_admin
If the customer is forced to pay for a piece of capital equipment that will also be used by others then that customer ought to have a right to share some of the revenues generated by that equipment (IMHO).

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

PostPosted: Wed Jun 27, 2018 10:01 am
by Perry
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.

You sure?

You appear to be implying that the folks who will live in the town houses will get no benefit from having a roof over their heads, will not be paying Rates, insurance premiums, lawn mowing contractors, etc., etc., and they will be getting electrical energy free and paying no fixed daily line charges. Those fixed daily charges intended to support the network - including upgrades, R&M and expansion.

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

PostPosted: Wed Jun 27, 2018 10:37 am
by hagfish
Malcolm wrote:<snip>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. </snip>

I don't think it's a fair analogy, unless the local authority then charges a toll on that road. Yes - they now have a new batch of houses they can levy rates on, but the road (and infrastructure in general) is a liability - as you say - ongoing maintenance. A cost of doing business.