I don't know how you can complain about your power bill. You can only be charged for what's on the meter. If you are using too much power , get rid of the offending item. [ Simple.]
Get solar power, its the best thing going. and the feed in is .66 not .60 you forgot the GST.
.21c/kwh + .56c/day service fee. Never heard of different rates for different towns, the rates only change when you go to some other power distributers area.

YABBY first:

The 60c you mention that the Power companies have to pay us for our Solar input? Nope.. correct me if I'm wrong but NSW just said "This is tooooo expensive and cut the payback from 60c to 20c because it was costing 'the government'... Now... I'm not clear (help anyone) if the 'too expensive' bit is for the Solar subsidies to set up the systems, or that the Government is paying the 60c or which.

If the energy companies have to pay it.. woopee...just deserts.

But Vic is already speaking about reducing it as well.

PERICLES.. an excellent and constructive post.... now let's spread that wisdom around to 'other' subjects eh :)

Regarding your specific points. "Underestimate the effort involved"

Clearly it would take time, cost and effort. No one works for free.. except perhaps Mother Theresa. There is another element to this proposed package which I don't wish to disclose, but... it would benefit consumers greatly, and would cost them $2.00/month.
It would involve a CEO salary and some secretarial/admin pay and some actuarial expense, but seems to me to be quite 'doable'.

One just has to think creatively about how 10,000 (or many more) consumers can apply their buying power or economic solidarity.

As to whether "I" would do this ? it's always possible.

Stickability of consumers? Obviously, contractual arrangements would be needed with guarantees from providers for at least 12months of secure pricing. (and consumers would be tied in to that period)

The difference between the current mess with providers going to great lengths to 'churn' consumers, that limited to what discount they will provide (if any) that they 'think' will be attractive enough to draw customers from their rivals. It has nothing to do with the potential bargaining power of a 10,000 strong Bloc of consumers.

*If the energy companies have to pay it.. woopee...just deserts.*

Ah but there is the rub, Boaz. In fact its you who helps pay for it
as part of your increased power charges. Because its not itemised
on your bill, you simply stay blissfully unaware and blame those
greedy companies. Yet its purely a political decision. The
companies are simply the messengers.

Boaz Aint that what the power companys are doin now. You are suggesting a company inside a company. Why not just be a power provider and dodge the middle man. Bying direct from the generators.

Hi 579...nope...the power companies represent 'share holders' not consumers.

A consumer bloc would represent consumers 100%

The power of such a bloc is becoming rather attractive :) in fact..I'm beginning to imagine myself as a kind of....god!

(that's a reference to how a particular person sees himself on another thread :)

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4099

Yabby... I think the Government pays the power companies for that solar input thingy.. if not, then yes..it's "us" in fact it's a bit like redistribution of wealth.....right?

You could be right, of course Boaz.

>>The difference between the current mess with providers going to great lengths to 'churn' consumers, that limited to what discount they will provide (if any) that they 'think' will be attractive enough to draw customers from their rivals. It has nothing to do with the potential bargaining power of a 10,000 strong Bloc of consumers.<<

But given the amount of churn in the Victorian market, I'm not convinced that the providers actually have a great deal of latitude on pricing.

My reasoning is that they have already factored in the cost of losing customers, into their prices.

There is, as we know, a measurable cost involved in acquiring one single customer. When establishing their pricing policies, most companies include this cost in their calculations. Let's say the figure is $100, and the average account yields $1,000 p.a. They would - given their knowledge of price elasticity and its impact on purchasing patterns - theoretically be able to use this 10% as an opportunity cost, by using it as a discount of some kind, in order to keep customers loyal.

Right now, though, it is working in the opposite direction: the knowledge that they are liable to lose a substantial percentage of customers in the coming year is an incentive to keep prices high, in order to cover the cost of the multiple $100-a-shot losses that they know will occur.

Somehow I don't believe that nailing down a few thousand customers for a period as short as a year, is going to excite them that much.

But, as I said, you may well be right.

The reality is, though, that the amount of churn is an indicator more of an immature market than anything else. Once it settles down, and people understand better what they are actually signing up for, prices will become keener.