Churn and burn: The high price of a broken electricity market

Energy Australia has today announced the axing of three hundred Australian call centre jobs, to be relocated to Manila, the Philippines. And if we are still gullible enough to swallow it, the line is that it’s the result of the pressures of retail competition. The truth is, it’s pure profit mining.

large_article_im2321_Philippine_Call_Center

Many of us would vaguely remember the fanfare that surrounded the establishment of the National Electricity Market, which was heralded as a winning formula for electricity consumers. Wholesale electricity was to be pooled and offered up to the majority of Australia’s population at market-driven prices.

In terms of wholesale supplies and with the advent of renewables, the wholesale cost has indeed been kept under control in this truly competitive market.

This is where the benefit ends and the rip-off begins. While the rules of the game, written by the players, dictate that no one player can control the whole electricity supply chain, they are permitted to control both ends.

So the term ‘Gentailer” refers to companies that control generation and retailing of electricity. Currently, most of our electricity is supplied through companies like Origin and Energy Australia – “Gentailers’ who have the ability to recover losses at one end by collecting them at the other. And the regulators are bending over backwards to facilitate this.

About four years ago, the regulator of the National Electricity Market approved a new “network fee” , this fee was to cover the costs of “sourcing and retaining retail customers”, or, in other words, the costs of churning customers by encouraging them to switch retailers by providing incentives, or by knocking on their front door until they jump ship.

The retailers were complaining that their small margin, at the time about 4 cents per kilowatt-hour, was being eroded by the costs of being “competitive”, and that this cost should be regarded as a fixed overhead, leaving another four cents available for profits.

By its very definition, competition means survival of the fittest and most skilled, however the market regulator has thrown a huge safety net under all retailers, which was more than likely intended to preserve the appearance of a competitive environment to us poor consumers.

Now, we as consumers could at least take some comfort that this safety net was being spent on Aussie bums sitting in Aussie towns playing ping pong with retail customers; that it meant jobs for Australia.


This situation is now changing, the jobs are going offshore and our “jobs subsidy” is going with it. To add insult to injury, we will now suffer an increased cost of retraining and welfare for the newly unemployed call centre employees.

Can we now demand this network cost be refunded to us? Utilities are sovereign essential services which every citizen should own and have access to, AT COST, and must return to public ownership and management.

While many people say government run (not corporatised) utilities are inefficient, I challenge anyone to justify the escalating costs that have come about from privatisation and corporatisation of essential services in the name of competition.

Comments

26 responses to “Churn and burn: The high price of a broken electricity market”

  1. Paul Szuster Avatar

    If you’re interested in an examination of outcomes in the deregulated Victorian retail electricity market, have a look at the CME report commissioned by the Brotherhood of St Laurence (BOSL). To put a number on these outcomes, the overall retailers’ charges has risen on average 212% over six years. http://bit.ly/1ke7FcN

    1. john Avatar
      john

      Highest cost of retail in Australia.
      A market fail.

      1. frostyoz Avatar
        frostyoz

        The failure is in the ABS survey which was used by the BOSL. The ABS did not survey the market cost of energy. It was a great report, built on a completely irrelevant base. BME itself says in the BOSL report “The analysis is based on standing offers/regulated reference tariffs and published network tariffs in the year ending 30 June 2014. Market offers are typically lower than standing tariffs.”

        But BME/BOSL then go on to base the report on regulated reference tariffs and standing tariffs, rather than the lower market offers.

  2. Steve Fuller Avatar
    Steve Fuller

    We need a royal commission into the whole electricity system. The system is the source of much carbon pollution that we want to rid ourselves of as quickly as possible. The system is too complex for the ordinary voter to comprehend. The system is an essential asset that may be incompatible with profit making (at least parts of it). There are vested interests doggedly hanging on to old business models. There are disruptive technologies here and now with ever more to come.

    We need an objective assessment (free of the noise from powerful lobbies) of what we’ve got, what’s available, what we need, what’s cheapest, what’s cleanest and what the options are.

    1. Rob Campbell Avatar
      Rob Campbell

      Agreed, whole heartedly

    2. Coley Avatar
      Coley

      We have that here in the UK, consumers can choose a supply company that is green and their business model is open to scrutiny.
      If we can do it, in this over regulated Isle, then surely there is an opportunity for companies in Australia to do the same?

  3. Warwick Avatar
    Warwick

    I think the author fails to understand that these are not regulated charges, rather they are a transparent cost formulation to arrive at a maximum tariff price. Therefore consumers should shop around to get a better deal at another retailer. This is no different from shopping around for groceries outside of Coles and Woolworths, finding a better deal on a mobile phone or getting your car serviced at mechanic not owned by a manufacturer. Even as I read this website I see “Compare Electricity Plans” being advertised, so vote with your feet and go to another retailer.
    I don’t quite get the Xenophobia regarding the Phillipines either. Eventually, for better or worse in years to come, the phones will be answered mainly by voice recognition and these people too may be out of a job…

    1. Chokyi Nyingpo Avatar
      Chokyi Nyingpo

      Though i agree with your assessment surrounding “shopping around” for a better deal i’d like to take issue with you “not quite getting” the call centre move.

      This too is shopping around and nowhere in the article does the author express any xenophia regarding it. If you read more carefully you’ll see he expresses another reason for the move – cost-cutting. How one can equate ‘cost-cutting’ with xenophobia is beyond me.

    2. john Avatar
      john

      As you know there is already a very poor voice recognition system in place which works pathetically and is very annoying delivering the caller to the wrong area.

    3. Rob Campbell Avatar
      Rob Campbell

      Warwick,
      please refer to the response I gave above. This retail competition you think you are getting is there in some form but there is 2/3 of your retail bill margins that aren’t deregulated in the true sense, retailers are kept, they don’t fight for survival, its all a show.

  4. John P Avatar
    John P

    A good summary of one of the reasons we decided to go ‘off grid’ years ago.

    1. MaxG Avatar
      MaxG

      Ahh, you too 🙂

      1. John P Avatar
        John P

        Yes MaxG. And you may already have seen something about it at onestepoffthegrid.com.au/the-off-grid-experience-and-how-its-changed-from-1992/.

  5. frostyoz Avatar
    frostyoz

    Rob, can you provide a link to the decision in which “the regulator of the National Electricity Market” approved a “network fee” for the cost of “sourcing and retaining retail customers”?

    Retailers’ power prices in Victoria, South Australia and NSW are not regulated.

    There is no huge safety net for retailers in those states. That is why they are seeking to reduce the costs of doing business.

    And, because payroll tax applies to Australian workers but not offshore workers, even if Manilla wages were the same you can save over 5% by outsourcing the function to an offshore operator. Payroll tax is a tax on Australian jobs.

    1. Rob Campbell Avatar
      Rob Campbell

      These costs come under the guise of “cost pass throughs”, ie. these are costs, such as solar bonus payment that are born by the retailer but can be reclaimed via a pass through cost which ends up on every body’s bill as a network charge.
      Below is the search result s page and a link to an Actel AGL report which describes customer acquisition and retention costs as a cost that is eligable for a pass through. From this you should see the legitimacy of my assertions, though possibly not as black and white as you request.

      https://www.google.com.au/search?q=network+charge+components+australia&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=pZE8Vt2BOYXgmAWL06OwBg#q=pass+through+retailer+cost+customer+retention

      http://www.icrc.act.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Submission-5-15-November-2013-ActewAGL.pdf

      1. frostyoz Avatar
        frostyoz

        Dear Rob,

        1 The ICRC report you link is a determination of maximum retail charges, not network costs.

        2 The ICRC determination only applies in the ACT. The ICRC is an ACT regulator, not a regulator of the National Electricity Market.

        3 Retail charges in Victoria, New South Wales and South Australia are unregulated. There is no regulated “huge safety net” in those states for retailers. They are exposed to full competition.

        4 Actew-AGL requested that the ICRC abandon retail price regulation in the ACT and abolish the cost pass-through retailing charge that you refer to, but the regulator there retained it, contrary to what has happened in the competitive states.

        Apart from the ACT and Queensland, the position you describe has no basis in fact.

        The sooner the ACT and Queensland deregulate their retail prices, the faster their citizens will be able to unlock the benefits of real competition. The kind of competition that is driving Energy Australia to find efficiencies in its call centre operations.

        1. Rob Campbell Avatar
          Rob Campbell

          With all due respects you are totally missing the point. It is a total and absolute farce that the people that print your bills and own your debts have any truly competitive function when it comes to the supply and delivery of what is and will remain a monopoly essential service.

          1. frostyoz Avatar
            frostyoz

            Rob, with respect, your “article” had no basis in fact. Yes, the supply and delivery of electric energy is carried on by monopoly network operators. The “retailing”, which involves the printing of bills, the recovery of your debts, and (more importantly) the generation of energy and the risk management of the balance between supply and demand, is carried on by retailers and gentailers and is competitive in those states that allow it to be so.

          2. Rob Campbell Avatar
            Rob Campbell

            ROC and CARC costs. By the fact that these costs are defined by the regulator, and costs are permitted to be passed through and not bundled into gross margins clearly shows that retailer costs are being supported by other than retail margins. Coles and Woolies don’t get granted a billing right to cover their costs for ROC and CARC. I don’t fathom why you think that the system is truly competitive, to the benefit of the customer. There is a valid argument to shop around for a cheaper price, but when it comes to retail costs 50% are locked in, only the other half are available for competition. This is what I as the deception of the NEM and it is clearly demonstrated by huge cost increases. If we conclude that wholesale costs have hovered around 4 cents for decades, and network charges have simply been dividend engines for GST poor state governments, then what was a retail margin on a nine cent per kilowatt hour cost which was the case about seven years ago of about three cents, now is approaching twelve cents. Why does it costs so much more to do something now that cost so little in the past. If it isn’t a ponsie scheme what other justification can be made for this ‘fake’ competition.?
            Facts:
            http://www.qca.org.au/getattachment/c2869e43-e36d-4c81-8290-2160b30d61f1/Alinta-Energy.aspx page3/4

            http://www.rba.gov.au/foi/disclosure-log/pdf/101115.pdf
            page 15

            I stand by the content of my article, If you are convinced that we have system that is transparent, efficient and better than the one I grew up with (ie government monopoly) then we can agree to disagree. My point is valid, I invite you to write your own article which disproves the inefficiencies and demonstrates the customer benefits of the current system compared to an at cost, citizen owned monopoly (for all its “inefficiencies”) it still beats the current farce hands down.

  6. Neil Frost Avatar
    Neil Frost

    I sit at home reading this post.
    I have no job.
    I most likely won’t have a job again.
    I seek training and get told its not available as it won’t help me get employed?
    So let them send all our jobs offshore and the taxes paid by these big companies can pay our benefits instead of our wages.
    It means more time to go fishing anyway.
    Just don’t complain that I am not working when all our jobs are going overseas!

    1. Rob Campbell Avatar
      Rob Campbell

      Neil,
      Don’t dispare, after you have done your fishing you can have a true and nobel purpose on this planet. Certainly, collect your welfare payment, you’ve earn t it when we had jobs in this country.
      Then do us all a favour by exposing the complete and utter lie that retail competition in utilities in this county is.

  7. Ray Miller Avatar
    Ray Miller

    Thanks Rob, the result in Queensland of the policy is a fixed charge of $467 per year and $0.2446 per kWh of any usage this has resulted in my effective price per kWh of about $0.70! This at the same time the whole sale price (AEMO) as I write this is $25.12 per MWh or $0.02512 per kWh. My question; where is the 70-2.5= 67.5 cents per kWh going?
    The facts of the policy is in the end result. Not only is the cost extremely high but it is for a high emission intensity product, if the price was high but for 100% renewable energy I could wear it.
    To make matters worst we have and will invest equivalent to many times the NBN fiber to the home cost but without any scrutiny and in a second rate product.
    We in QLD are having a ‘fair price for solar’ inquiry and one into the price of electricity but our economic model as well as our energy models are very broken. With no sign of changing the models. We are unable to capture the opportunities of energy efficiency and taking advance of our geographic renewable energy resources. Coupled is the lack of energy industry innovation, except for innovation in gaming the regulator.

  8. heri yanto Avatar
    heri yanto

    Save money and build a long term investment for your future. Its a Win / Win for everyone and you get to help the earth. http://goo.gl/CdNM1z

    1. Mike Dill Avatar
      Mike Dill

      Clickbait

  9. Jacob Avatar
    Jacob

    It is outrageous to allow generators to own retailers!

    And Red Energy maintain their call centre here.

    The staff in Energy AUS were paid too much.

  10. Rob G Avatar
    Rob G

    I can see it now. A massive climate change induced hurricane hits the Philippines closing the call centre down for weeks. There’s something very ironic about a climate denying business moving to a very climate prone part of the world, that truly gets the risks it faces.

Get up to 3 quotes from pre-vetted solar (and battery) installers.