In all the current kafuffle about the NSW selloff of electricity, one very important point thus far has not been mentioned to my knowledge.

CONTRACTS. Does the proposed sale contract include true benefits for the people..or the power companies? For example, does the contract allow the Government to make decisions which will directly impact negatively on the power company bottom lines, withOUT compensation?

EXAMPLE. If the government decides to invest in alternative energy for every home. Lets say it legislated as follows:

"All homes (new and old) will have to install 'high efficienty lighting' within the next 3 yrs"

Lets say this redUCES power consumption by 10% and thus, the power companies will lose 10% of revenue.

QUESTION 1.. Does the contract prohibit power companies from simply raising prices to compensate for this loss of revenue?

QUESTION 2.. Does the contract prevent Taxpayers or Government from having to compensate the power companies for this loss of revenue.

We have all been BITTEN by the 'privatization' of public utilities, and thus, I don't have GAS which ends 1km away in 2 directions. Now..the Gas companies would charge about $100,000 just to take the main the 1km along the main road, going down side roads after that would be additional.

WATER.. is it not true that when residents started to use water tanks, thus reducing the consumption of 'private' water, the government had to either charge licence fees for the tanks (which then went in part to Water companies?) or.. allow water companies to raise prices etc to compensate? (Just questions)

Very good questions, but do you think you will get an answer.

Remember he said before the state election he wouldnt sell and those gullible enough to believe that will believe any answer that may come.

I wouldnt hold your breath but remember this , as with all the problems in victoria it is not the government to blame but climate change.

Stuart Ulrich
Independent

Great question Boaz. The NSW Govt. has 'form' by destroying alternative roads to funnel people into the tunnels and tolls.

Dear David,

Another interesting thread - with great questions.

This will keep us busy for sometime, trying to find out what the
answers could be.

Thanks - keep them coming.

Boaz,

I was once in a Rostrum club with a senior [had a PhD] manager wityh electricity commission. At the time the government owed five billion dollars for power stations. He said if everyone used low-power globes, the unit cost of the use electricity would have to increase, so government could its bills.

Independent et al,

A rule of thumb for a reasonable return is seven percent compound interest over time, meaning money is doubled every ten years. Fifteen billion dollars would fund Government for two terms. Beyond that point we have lost the Asset.

Ieema is working against the wishes of the People and his own rank and file. I think there are many names he could be called for his anti-democratic behaviour. But note, no ALP politicians have resigned or crossed the floor in protest: Services to the People or their own ambitions?

Hi all...

well.. I don't know if there will be an answer, but I'm sure as heck going to raise the question, and if GY is right about 350,000 people viewing this site per month, lets hope SOME of them 'count' in matters such as these.

This is a most important question which is usually lost or overlooked as the 'privatization' bandwagon drags on.

I just look at the Commonwealth Bank and ask "How... how did privatizing this help the people"? nada..nyet.. nothing.. just making BILLIONS for the banks shareholders.

PROBLEM... as usual there is one. IF.. as Iemma says "we need the money" it indicates they have been living/operating beyond their means and if only this kind of 'ad hoc' money will save their sorry asses, what does that say about when there is nothing more to sell off?

It says PLENTY..... and its alllll bad.