Matthew Xuereb
Unions want utility rates postponed to January 1
PM to meet unions again today
The Prime Minister will meet unions today to make his counterproposals to their nine-point package, which includes a postponement of the new energy bills to January 1.
The proposals, seen by The Times, were submitted to Lawrence Gonzi on Tuesday during a meeting that followed the protest unions had held against the new tariffs last week.
The unions called for an elimination of the rise in meter charges and to push the consumption ceiling from 1,500 to 1,800 units per person per household. They argued that the government should make sure people were not made to shoulder the inefficiencies of Enemalta Corporation, which are valued in conflicting estimates as standing at between €16 million and €27 million.
They also asked the government to leave unchanged the rent on the three-phase electricity system for domestic users and demanded increases in the eco reduction benefit, to apply more of a consumer-pays progression.
On these lines they requested an increase on the eco reduction system from the present 20 to 25 per cent on the first 1,000 units and from 10 to 15 per cent on the second 1,000 units.
The new tariffs were presented as final by Investments Minister Austin Gatt some three weeks ago. However, following intense criticism by all the social partners, the government said it was willing to consider "tweaking" the bills.
The proposals
1. The October 1 introduction pushed forward to January 1, 2009.
2. A revision of the consumption ceiling from 1,500 units to 1,800 units per person per household and 2,000 in the case of people who live alone.
3. Three-phase electricity system for families remains unchanged.
4. No increases in rent for water and electricity meters.
5. A national education campaign on how people can reduce their consumption.
6. Acceptance of the principle that people who waste most pay more and that workers and pensioners cannot continue to shoulder more burdens.
7. Improvement of fiscal incentives for people to reduce their consumption.
8. The eco reduction increased from 20 to 25 per cent on the first 1,000 units and from 10 to 15 per cent on the second 1,000 units.
9. Measures so that the inefficiencies of Enemalta Corporation are not shouldered by the consumers.
Popular Stories
Update 3: Woman found dead in car,...
Updated: Woman dies in car crash
Part of Dwejra 'Azure window' collapses
The end of the bar that ‘never closed’
Bundy does not know whether to...
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
This WAS the night - Kurt makes it...
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Petrol price up 6c
In Discussion
7 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Mario Busuttil
Nov 23rd 2008, 08:18
These proposals that were made by the unions representing in the council of MCESD were good proposals.Therefore MR.Martinelli you should go there and make your proposals instead of critisise the UNIONS>>>
Adrian Cardona
Nov 22nd 2008, 19:12
Mr Martinelli
what's insane is the wild increase in tariffs when the price of oil is goind down. What's insane is setting a consumption ceiling of 1500 units when every single expert on the subject said that it is impossible to stay below it. What's insane is doubling and tripling car license fees in one go. What's insane is making hybrid cars who pollute less even more expensive. What's insane is that 16 million euros a year are classified as 'avoidable' wastage by Enemalta.
And insanest of all is your dogged defence of anything this goverment does.
I Abela
Nov 22nd 2008, 18:35
To say the truth I am quite disappointed with the unions. What happened to the ' Anti - Social tariffs' ? Would they be Pro-Social on 1st January? If something is wrong, IT IS WRONG fullstop. Postponing it to a later date will not make it right. The unions should have sticked to the principle that while oil is going down, tariffs can't possibly go up.
wally vella-zarb
Nov 22nd 2008, 16:52
Mr Fenech, I'm afraid that you might need to brush up on Logic.
These 9 proposals were made BY the Unions TO the Government, and not the other way round.
Therefore, by definition, they can only be described as unreasonable / unrealistic / politically motivated / insane.
I understand that the Canadian Union of Nationalist Tripevendors will shortly be offering a presentation on how to interpret all that happens in Malta in a favourable light. It is truly a pity that we do not have an official Minister for Favourable Statistics; I know the very candidate who would fit this position to a 'T'. :-)
john fenech
Nov 22nd 2008, 15:29
Mr Martenelli if I remember correctly you were one to advocate the adage ‘pay for what you consume’. The 9 points aren’t against this maxim, but are insisting that the burden is eased for those who can pay the least and that the new tariffs will come in line with the cost of living increase. Reasonable incentives to all those who wish to install alternate energy systems, plus reaffirming the government efforts to educate against waste. The revised KWH ceiling is reasonable at 2000 units for a single person.
As regard the meter charge, which has more than doubled( From 28 to 65 Euro each Meter), I total agree that it is unacceptable; I wish that you or the authorities will explain the reason for this increase which will net to the government 11,100,000 Euro per annum!(single phase electrical meter and water meter for 150000 units). The new tariffs, for a family of two, will increase the bill by 30% on the 95 % surcharge or an increase of 125%!
So could you enlighten us as to which of these points will lead us to the funny farm?
Paul Pace
Nov 22nd 2008, 12:32
"6. Acceptance of the principle that people who waste most pay more"
Most of the wastage of energy comes from Hotels. In my opinion their capping encourages them to do so.
Enter any hotel whether it is 5 or 4 stars, and you find everywhere is lit even in bright sunshine. Lobby area, bars and restaurants, toilets, the facade, the pool area....and no use of energy savers. On tne contrary high wattage halogen lamps by the hundreds and flood lights outside not to mention the lights that are left on in the rooms.
I am not suggesting to leave the hotels in the dark. What I am trying to say is you pay for what you use. Hotels are not well planned to reduce energy. For example, why there are not windows in the toilets?
Finally I totally agree with the unions with their logical statement "that workers and pensioners cannot continue to shoulder more burdens"
That is justice Mr. Prime Minster!
J Martinelli
Nov 22nd 2008, 12:31
Some of these nine proposals are insane.