I wonder whether I am a minority in Australia when it comes to the topic of Government accountability. It seems to me that increasingly both federal and state governments are behaving like marketing machines rather than elected representatives.
The most recent fiasco of the deal with the Malaysian government is just another in a long line of instances where the PM seems to think that she can "market" the deal rather than explain to the Australian public how their actions actually achieves something.
No where can I find any explanation of just how this deal is going to reduce the flow of illegal immigrants. I am by no means saying that the problem is an easy one to solve. But not one explanation has been offered to the Australian voting public of what objectives the deal was supposed to have achieved. Is it any wonder that Australians are left wondering just how weak our leadership is. And there is little doubt that governments both federal and state are spending vast sums of money on marketing.
There has been a change in many state governments so these new premiers have an opportunity to get back to the business of governing. They are not selling stuff so it is about time they stopped acting as if they were. Sugar coating may fool some of the voters some of the time but as they proverbial saying goes it will not fool everyone all the time. How about getting back to the truth and re-establishing trust and integrity in government. To the new premiers of Victoria and New South Wales, I plead with you to take heed. In the case of Victoria, the controversy over the events with the police force in the past week are an excellent opportunity to come clean and to tell the public the truth. The Police Commissioner is for all intents and purposes acting as if he is not accountable to anyone. This must be stopped and it can only be done with strong leadership from the top to do the right thing
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
Sunday, May 8, 2011
Sunday, October 17, 2010
Smart Meters Continuing Fiasco in Victoria
The continuing fiasco with the rollout of electricity smart meters in Victoria is would be comical if it wasn't for the fact that the consumer is footing the bill for something that should have been a good initiative for better energy consumption and more responsible energy consumption.
It is clear that the existing mechanical meters have outlived it's use by date and the benefits of the new smart meters is obvious. For reasons known only to the Victorian State Government, it has chosen to roll out smart meters putting the main bulk of costs on the consumer. The key benefit to the consumer of having being able to see their actual consumption patterns is that it should lead to a change in behavior to adjust consumption patterns to make realize cost benefits of cheaper electricity during off peak hours.
Without these, there is no benefit for adoption and only the cost of installing the new meters, which is mandatory anyway. So what you get is the electricity companies gaining the benefit of more efficient meter reading and therefore lower costs which are not passed onto the consumer.
This is just another example of how badly out of the touch the government is with the people. What is more bewildering to me is why the people of Victoria simply keep voting them back into power. With the coming election I simply say get rid of them and send a clear message to a new government that there has to be a better way.
It is clear that the existing mechanical meters have outlived it's use by date and the benefits of the new smart meters is obvious. For reasons known only to the Victorian State Government, it has chosen to roll out smart meters putting the main bulk of costs on the consumer. The key benefit to the consumer of having being able to see their actual consumption patterns is that it should lead to a change in behavior to adjust consumption patterns to make realize cost benefits of cheaper electricity during off peak hours.
Without these, there is no benefit for adoption and only the cost of installing the new meters, which is mandatory anyway. So what you get is the electricity companies gaining the benefit of more efficient meter reading and therefore lower costs which are not passed onto the consumer.
This is just another example of how badly out of the touch the government is with the people. What is more bewildering to me is why the people of Victoria simply keep voting them back into power. With the coming election I simply say get rid of them and send a clear message to a new government that there has to be a better way.
Location:Mahoneys Rd,Forest Hill,Australia
Thursday, July 1, 2010
There Must Be A Smarter Way To Promote Energy Efficiency
I have come to the conclusion that it is intrinsically illogical for to expect that energy and utility companies will actually want consumer be energy efficient. Why would they? Don't they sell us electricity for a price? The last time I checked, revenue = price x quantity. So to increase revenue the supplier must increase either price or quantity or better still both.
So let's see if I can explain this. Power companies cannot just increase prices unilaterally. They have pesky regulators who must agree the price that they are allowed to charge consumers. And you guessed it, they typically ask for a higher rate based on the the cost of production.
Now if there is only limited things you can do to get a price increase approved, that leaves you with quantity as the only other thing to do to increase revenue. (let's leave profit to another post for the moment). So let me try to explain it another way. If quantity consumed is one of the two things that increase your revenue, why would you want to reduce consumption? Sure I acknowledge that it is never only one single factor to be considered in this discussion. Governments and utility companies will remind us that in order to ensure reliable and stable supply, they have to build power plants to meet peak demand and boy have you seen the price tag for one of these babys.
But fact is that with all things considered, there really isn't too much real motivation around for utility companies to reduce demand for their power. Thomas Friedman in his book Hot, Fat and Crowded explains quite simply that the current model we have to day is an "eat as much as you want" model when it comes to energy consumption.
The problem is that we have left it to energy companies to promote energy efficiency ---duh! Let me restate the scenario here. Mr utility company, we would like you to undertake to promote energy efficiency so that demand for the only product (which by the way is a commodity) you sell will fall and so will your revenue.
If I were a cynical person (which I am not) I could be forgiven for thinking that the power companies really do not care about the consumer's energy consumption. They actually would love to sell you more power in the way that any business would like to get a bigger share of your wallet. The people with the biggest motivation for doing something about energy efficiency is the consumer - yeah that's you and me. I am questioning whether utility companies should be delegated the responsibility for both promoting energy usage efficiency as they do not really stand to get as much benefit.
Which leads me to the whole point of consumers putting solar panels on their roofs. By doing so you, the consumer suddenly become a producer. You are actually competing with the utility companies. Not only are you competing with them but by doing so you are actually reducing demand for the electricity they supply to you and in the process reduce their revenue.
So we are all left with this conundrum. Getting consumers into the renewable energy game is not only desirable but essential if we are to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels. But our existing model really does not provide the necessary motivation for such as change. It is time for a new model that shifts the focus to the consumer who has the right motivation for being energy efficient when it hits our back pockets.
So let's see if I can explain this. Power companies cannot just increase prices unilaterally. They have pesky regulators who must agree the price that they are allowed to charge consumers. And you guessed it, they typically ask for a higher rate based on the the cost of production.
Now if there is only limited things you can do to get a price increase approved, that leaves you with quantity as the only other thing to do to increase revenue. (let's leave profit to another post for the moment). So let me try to explain it another way. If quantity consumed is one of the two things that increase your revenue, why would you want to reduce consumption? Sure I acknowledge that it is never only one single factor to be considered in this discussion. Governments and utility companies will remind us that in order to ensure reliable and stable supply, they have to build power plants to meet peak demand and boy have you seen the price tag for one of these babys.
But fact is that with all things considered, there really isn't too much real motivation around for utility companies to reduce demand for their power. Thomas Friedman in his book Hot, Fat and Crowded explains quite simply that the current model we have to day is an "eat as much as you want" model when it comes to energy consumption.
The problem is that we have left it to energy companies to promote energy efficiency ---duh! Let me restate the scenario here. Mr utility company, we would like you to undertake to promote energy efficiency so that demand for the only product (which by the way is a commodity) you sell will fall and so will your revenue.
If I were a cynical person (which I am not) I could be forgiven for thinking that the power companies really do not care about the consumer's energy consumption. They actually would love to sell you more power in the way that any business would like to get a bigger share of your wallet. The people with the biggest motivation for doing something about energy efficiency is the consumer - yeah that's you and me. I am questioning whether utility companies should be delegated the responsibility for both promoting energy usage efficiency as they do not really stand to get as much benefit.
Which leads me to the whole point of consumers putting solar panels on their roofs. By doing so you, the consumer suddenly become a producer. You are actually competing with the utility companies. Not only are you competing with them but by doing so you are actually reducing demand for the electricity they supply to you and in the process reduce their revenue.
So we are all left with this conundrum. Getting consumers into the renewable energy game is not only desirable but essential if we are to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels. But our existing model really does not provide the necessary motivation for such as change. It is time for a new model that shifts the focus to the consumer who has the right motivation for being energy efficient when it hits our back pockets.
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Are We Ready For Smart Meters in Victoria?
Reading about the problems with the rollout of Smartmeters in Victoria, one could easily understand why consumers are angry about what they see as being slugged with another unnecessary cost. Consumers are already reeling from increased utility bills and this is yet another blow to families.
There is such a fixation and focus on costs and this begs the question of just why the Victorian government and the Utility companies have done a such a terrible job of educating the consumer and articulating what the whole initiative was all about.
For starters, just what are the real benefits the consumers are getting for being asked to pick up the tab for changing over to the new smart meters.The real tragedy is that very little has been done to educate consumers to the extent that it would seem that the expectation was that it would somehow sell itself.
The big missing piece is applications. What are consumers, not the utility companies, expected to do and get with smart meters. I cannot find anything published or communications to consumers about what they can use it for, which by the way there are. It is time the utility companies understand that unless they change the way they view customers, they are in for a very long and frustrating journey to introduce much of the needed change in attitudes required to introduce new energy infrastructure. Simply saying that one is green or greener is simply not enough.
To take an example from another industry. The real reason why Apple is so hugely successful with the IPhone is not because it is a great phone as there are loads of other better phones around the place. It is because Apple cultivated a huge army of developers to write programs which people could easily get and install and use on their IPhones. Things that they could do something with.
Why has this not happened with smart meters. Where are the "applications" for the smart meter. You'd be forgiven if you came to the conclusion that perhaps they are not that smart if there isn't too much one can do with it. How would the smart meters actually lead to reducing energy consumption. Until the utility companies start working with companies with devices and applications that can actually make a difference to a consumers energy consumption, the smart meters will be perceived as nothing more than a mere replacement for the mechanical meter that they have.
The message is really quite simple - if a consumer does not receive any real tangible benefit, all you are left with is a cost proposition and that will not get you very far
There is such a fixation and focus on costs and this begs the question of just why the Victorian government and the Utility companies have done a such a terrible job of educating the consumer and articulating what the whole initiative was all about.
For starters, just what are the real benefits the consumers are getting for being asked to pick up the tab for changing over to the new smart meters.The real tragedy is that very little has been done to educate consumers to the extent that it would seem that the expectation was that it would somehow sell itself.
The big missing piece is applications. What are consumers, not the utility companies, expected to do and get with smart meters. I cannot find anything published or communications to consumers about what they can use it for, which by the way there are. It is time the utility companies understand that unless they change the way they view customers, they are in for a very long and frustrating journey to introduce much of the needed change in attitudes required to introduce new energy infrastructure. Simply saying that one is green or greener is simply not enough.
To take an example from another industry. The real reason why Apple is so hugely successful with the IPhone is not because it is a great phone as there are loads of other better phones around the place. It is because Apple cultivated a huge army of developers to write programs which people could easily get and install and use on their IPhones. Things that they could do something with.
Why has this not happened with smart meters. Where are the "applications" for the smart meter. You'd be forgiven if you came to the conclusion that perhaps they are not that smart if there isn't too much one can do with it. How would the smart meters actually lead to reducing energy consumption. Until the utility companies start working with companies with devices and applications that can actually make a difference to a consumers energy consumption, the smart meters will be perceived as nothing more than a mere replacement for the mechanical meter that they have.
The message is really quite simple - if a consumer does not receive any real tangible benefit, all you are left with is a cost proposition and that will not get you very far
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Smart Meters ~ The Untold Story
At the residential level however, the story is simply quite bleak. To put it simply, it reads "dear customer, we would like to install a smart meter which you will pay for .......". So where is the benefit to the residential consumer.
I am believe in the smart grid, which smart meters are a component off. The problem is that we have not taken the time to do it right. Smart meters are an essential component of the smart grid but unless consumers get a benefit out if it, they will be hard pressed to support it especially if they are forced to foot the bill.
- It is not something which a consumer could opt in for ~ as a consumer this would be a red flag. It suggests "they cannot convince me of the benefits so they impose it"
- What is the use of more information about usage patterns unless it gives the consumer some benefit ~ this one is the real sting in the tail. The primary benefit here is that utility companies would be able to apply different prices for electricity at different times of the day which is a very compelling benefit. This is called Time of Use (TOU) pricing. But the introduction of this pricing has been suspended. Without this pricing the rationale for introducing smart meter quickly falls apart and all a consumer is left with is a charge for a new metering system which does little for them
- The great promise of the smart grid is more efficient use of energy. Imagine a time when all appliances in your home uses energy intelligently. Washing machines and dishwashers switch on when electricity rates are lowest. Your big TVs turn off when it detects no one in the room and the list goes on. The smart grid together with smart meters provides the underlying platform and foundation to do this. The problem is that until our appliances can deal with this it is actually actually pointless. It is called applications ~ it is like having a computer without any programs to run on it.
The smart grid is just too important for the major players to stuff it up with silly plays and isolated initiatives. Just what considerations were given to the views and needs of residential consumers is unclear. What alternative deployment plans were considered and what applications were investigated? What did any discussions with appliance manufacturers reveal?
A quick read of the websites of the major power utilities talk about making easier to read meters more efficiently leading to cost savings which is a good thing for the utility companies. Let's consider that for a moment. The energy companies get to reduce the cost of meter readings by reducing the number of meter readers and they want the consumers to pay for meters that allow them to do this. Lets do the sums. If the number of meter readers is reduced by just 10, the annual cost savings for the energy company would be in the region of at least $800,000 a year. One could be forgiven if you came to the conclusion that the reason for compulsory replacement of meters (instead of a voluntary opt in) was due in large part to the fact that a hybrid situation was to allow utility companies to reduce costs of metering. Whatever you may think, consumers are still left with the question of why they are paying so much for something which does not deliver any benefits to them.
The saddest part of this whole episode is that the Victorian people now have a sour taste for smart grids and smart meters and it will take a lot of persuasion to convince them of its merits going forward. Let us hope that Victorians do see beyond the failings of our leaders and insist on accountability from them. Energy and its use is far too important an issue for us to just accept poor performance by the government on. We need smart grids and we need to find a better way of getting widespread support for it.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
What Happened With Smart Meters In Victoria?
The Age newspaper carried the story "Plug pulled on smart meter plan" on 23 March 2010 explaining that it would be further investigating the impact on the poor and the aged. I have to wonder about the reason being given for the suspension of the project part way through the project which is supposed to be completed by 2013.
Part of the problem lies with the rather poor job the utilities and the government has done about educating consumers about the Smart Grid. Here are just examples to two of the utility company web pages describing smart meters
And here is the link to the Department of Primary Industries smart meters webpage
There is lots of information about why it is being done and a whole lot of information about billing and references to time of use billing which is fine but conspicuously absent from all the information is the real benefit to the consumer. All they know in reality is that there is now a new charge for "metering" and no real benefits from an energy consumption cost perspective.
Maybe the problem is that both the utility companies and the government cannot reconcile the initiative to the fact that most Victorians will be seeing massive increases to their energy bills even without the increased cost of carbon trading.
There is no doubt that smart meters are an essential element of rolling out a smart grid. But the consumers have not been educated about the big picture nor have they really been provided with any incentives. All they see is more costs for a commodity - power. I am an advocate for reducing carbon emissions and the use of renewable energy but these kind of bungles gives the industry a bad name. When are we ever going to learn that to change consumer behaviour requires much more than just dropping in smart meters.
There needs to be a more concerted and widespread education program. What can consumers expect to gain apart from real time reading and understanding of their energy consumption patterns. There has been precious little explanation about how they can cut their energy bills. Is it any wonder that the poor and disadvantaged are worst hit
What Are Local Authorities Doing About Renewable Energy
I have searched high and low on my local council website and cannot find anything about energy. Not finding anything I searched a few more local council websites and came out empty. It seems to me to be a bit strange that despite the Victorian Government making commitments to renewable energy targets that there seems to be little that local councils are going.
Would it not be logical for local councils who have plenty of roof space to make investments and show a good example even if it was on a small scale. Increasing the generation of renewable energy needs to holistic approach . At present, the framework appears to be left pretty much to the utility companies and private individuals and businesses.
Local and state governments seem to be conspicuously absent from the scene. Surely all the heating and lighting requirements of government buildings and libraries would be a logical candidate. After all if we are trying to encourage private residential owners to install solar panels why would the same not apply to government buildings. I can only image that the energy bills are as costly for a government building as it is for a private residence.
And the same goes for schools and other institutions of learning. All these buildings need to be lit and heated whether by gas or otherwise. And most of these buildings are occupied during the day time which would make it more meaningful in terms of energy and cost per head.
Would it not be logical for local councils who have plenty of roof space to make investments and show a good example even if it was on a small scale. Increasing the generation of renewable energy needs to holistic approach . At present, the framework appears to be left pretty much to the utility companies and private individuals and businesses.
Local and state governments seem to be conspicuously absent from the scene. Surely all the heating and lighting requirements of government buildings and libraries would be a logical candidate. After all if we are trying to encourage private residential owners to install solar panels why would the same not apply to government buildings. I can only image that the energy bills are as costly for a government building as it is for a private residence.
And the same goes for schools and other institutions of learning. All these buildings need to be lit and heated whether by gas or otherwise. And most of these buildings are occupied during the day time which would make it more meaningful in terms of energy and cost per head.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)