Model 'correct' but data accuracy was not verified

Mark Sammut

Jan 18th 2009, 10:54

@Mario Gauci
That is because enemalta never published its financial statements for the years mentioned. Therefore next best alternative is look at their unaudited accounts.Gov. entities should never be allowed to file late accounts as they should set the example.

J Martinelli

Jan 17th 2009, 21:08

@ Anthony Briffa

"May I here ask why is fuel being bought refined rather than bought crude and then refined to our requirements as used to be the system in the 70’s and 80’s?"

Where is the saving? Adding an extra set of negotiations (with refineries) usually adds to delays and extra costs.

A Sciberras

Jan 17th 2009, 18:20

The country's only energy company, which sends its bills to every household and company. Accounts not audited for years. The government hiding behind both the regulator, run by a man who is something of a dinosaur himself (not even an attempt to interview the man himself by the way) and two of the big 4 accountancy firms who check the model, check themselves and conclude such gems such as the model was correct but "the verification of the data was not verified". Any government in any democracy would be crucified by this. Not in Malta. Not with journalists who do not question the silence of the regulator, the horror of Enemalta not having filed audited accounts since 2005. It takes more than an election every five years to a democracy make.

john fenech

Jan 17th 2009, 16:51

I have asked the following questions to the MRA official and was informed these, amongst others, were being forwarded to the WSC authorities.

1) If the energy meter is read in April and October and the consumption for June – September will be above the ECO threshold due to seasonal load, the consumer should be entitled to a rebate if the aggregate consumption for the 12 calendar months will be within the ECO limit.

2) If the consumption for a household of three or more is within the ECO threshold then the 25% reduction has to be calculated in part @ €0.161 and in part at €0.173. Since each person is allowed 1000 Units, a household is allocated 3000 @ 25% and 2250 units plus @ 15%.
Since the tariff for the first 2000 is @ 0.161 and the remaining till 6000 is @ 0.173. Therefore for a family of three the reduction should be (2000*€0.161*25%) + (1000*€0.173*25%), then the remaining 750 unit, 3 *750* €0.173*15%. The same method is applied for households of four or more persons.

I hope that the data had been validated to incorporate the above and will be reflected in future bills.

victor vella

Jan 17th 2009, 14:27

What I hate about Malta ( I am proud to be Maltese)is that we have to pay for any mismanagment done by the goverment or it's entities.If Enemalta was a private company they would have to answer to the owner, in this case the owner ( US VIA Goverment) answer to thier mismanagment and failings/It is also happening at WSC we pay in advance for thier wastage and other things ( I do not have proof of corruption so I will not mention it)

P. Cassar

Jan 17th 2009, 14:08

AND THE MINISTRY CAME OUT RUNNING WITH A STATEMENT GLORIFING ITSELF AND CRITISISING OTHERS. I NOW EXPECT IT TO CORRECT ITSELF AS LEAST TO SHOW THAT IT DOES NOT CONSIDER US AS IDIOTS.

Abel Abela

Jan 17th 2009, 11:47

Do taxpayers and consumers care about pedantic studies of the methodology? This is not an arithmetic exam, this is about people's lives. What people know is what they read in their bills. Can Malta's energy dinosaur - monopoly be expected to establish a fair market price to be paid by consumers? No because Maltese families have to compensate for the failings of Malta's energy monopoly out of their hard- earned income. Today crude oil is selling at USD35 but Malta's families - the majority of whom are very careful in their consumption - are paying water and electricity bills set to reflect the highest rates ever at prices around USD150. THAT is definitely NOT correct!!!

Mario Gauci

Jan 17th 2009, 11:14

This is getting better day by day. How can a responsible audit firm conduct such an important exercise on unaudted accounts as stated in the article "It carried out its exercise based on Enemalta's 2006, 2007 and 2008 unaudited accounts.".

The correctness of the accounts have not even been verified.

Disgusting.

Anthony Briffa

Jan 17th 2009, 10:55

I have no doubt that the methodology used by KPMG as verified by Deloitte is correct. What we need to verify is the base information given to KPMG by Government/Enemalta to eventually work out the new tariffs, which must have included the power generation and distribution ongoing cost including the old working practices, the purchase price of fuel, administration costs including all the inefficiencies such as the recently reported wasted funds on the purchase of computers and all the other contingencies. What the MRA should have asked Deloitte to do, as the guardian of the consumers’ rights, was to carry out another exercise based on the new price of oil, which has been declining since October 2008, and now stands, according to the site www.oil-price.net, at US $ 42.47 per barrel with a yearly forecast of US $ 49 per barrel. Also the unions should stop talking about the eco-discount and request a complete revamp of the tariffs based on the new price scenario. May I here ask why is fuel being bought refined rather than bought crude and then refined to our requirements as used to be the system in the 70’s and 80’s?