Tuning back in Boazy. Not sure about contract law, but is it not best to strictly 'regulate' public utilities like this? They do it with gas, why not electricity?

Dear Q & A....That's my whole point mate.

REGULATE..sure..but it needs to be beefier.

They must NOT have in the contract anything which assures the buyer of immunity from the potentially negative economic impact of future government decisions WHICH benefit the consumer...

If for example the contract stipulated that "if the government requires the land on which the generator is situation, the owner will be compensated in full for the cost of re-location" (just to use a simple but unrealistic example) I'm ok with that.

I'm NOT ok with them guaranteeing NOT to make decisions which can result in cheaper power for consumers, such as the use of alternative energy for low powered high efficiency lighting, or..hybrid systems.

They should also include incentives for consumers to use grid interactive systems.. where KW/Hrs purchased from the consumer are credited at a higher rate than the rate the utility sells them at :)

Bottom line... any sale must be actually in the current AND FUTURE public interest. Where that public interest is clearly defined.
It is not in the public interest for the utility company to be compensated from tax revenue for lost profits if 10% of us went onto alternative energy.

If only I had a few pitbulls to unleash on them :) (da guvment)

Seajaye, the Lord High Dymo, Thread Labeller-in-Chief of OLO, hath delivered judgement and must be answered!

Dubiosity:

The Punic War analogy is only being used as a literary device in response to the opening poster in THIS discussion, he, BOAZ_David, having opened another recent discussion on just this subject (See: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1765 ). The Cato of THAT discussion is portrayed as the persistent identifier of a threat to the security of the then Roman Republic, together with prescribing an appropriate response, and the Carthaginian threat used as an allusion to the 'neo-cons' of today.

My posts here make no such allusion to 'neo-cons', nor do they suggest their involvement in any 'conspiracy' that would explain the proposed sell-off of electricity by the NSW government, a course that a broad cross-section of posters find perplexing and ill-advised.

The opening post outlines seeming abdication on the part of governments from the exercise of legislative power over arguably 'natural' monopolies. It questions whether, alternatively, unrevealed contract provisions bind Australian governments in preserving such monopolies to foreign interests. No interest groups within the Australian community would seem to be served by such divestment.

Conspiracy:

It seems reasonable to question, in this circumstance, whether those representing Australians are effectively doing so. If the consensus is that they are not, then the question has to be asked as to whether, if all are not in some active conspiracy of deceit, the electoral process itself has been subverted to emplace such a sellout mindset.

The identity of the 'Cato' of THIS discussion is no real mystery, and will in relatively short order be revealed, if indeed it does not first become obvious to anyone who really reads, and ponders upon, these posts. This 'code name' is only used to encourage viewers to think through, for themselves, an excursion into the possibilities open under the Constitution for corrective action to an hypothesised situation of Australian politics across the board having been subject to, and moulded by, the deception of long-running sophisticated electoral impropriety.

My apologies to B_D and all for the non-sequitur nature of my previous post. Although able to log in to OLO throughout from Sat 10 May until today, Thu 15 May, I have been experiencing, with the exception of a brief window of opportunity from late on Mon 12 May until around 10 AM on Tue 13 May during which I posted above, a mysterious difficulty in posting. The technical description of the problem may be found here: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1714#35565

In the mean time, the discussion appears to have died.

Just as a matter of interest, and returning to a more directly related issue so far as the opening post is concerned, I note the article on page 7 of the Sydney Morning Herald of Wed 14 May headed 'Wind farm vow to power desalination', by Edmund Tadros and Brian Robins.

The article claims:

"The [NSW] State Government has signed a 20-year contract to create the largest wind farm in NSW to power its desalination plant.

This is part of its committment that the plant would use renewable energy, even though it will be a big electricity user.

The 63-turbine Capital Wind Farm in Bungendore, near Queanbeyan - funded by Babcock & Brown Wind Partners and Babcock & Brown Power - will provide all the electricity needs of the desalination plant, the Premier, Morris Iemma, said yesterday. ..."

I don't know about you B_D, but I see a veritable thicket of issues here in relation to the proclaimed intended sell-off of NSW electricity business.

One can only wonder as to how long negotiations have been in process between Babcock & Brown and the State government to establish the wind farm. Also, given the claim as to supplying ALL power for the desalinator, as to what grid it is with which the wind farm will have to be 'balanced' and what effects this must presumably have on other parties, including NSW consumers.

The identification of 'CATO' will have to wait unless you wish to revive or restart the discussion.