Bills must remain affordable and ensure investment

Anna Walker has published the final report of her independent review of charging for water and sewerage services. She is right to highlight that bills need to remain affordable if there is to continue to be the required consensus on investing to improve our environment. She may also be right that metering is the fairest and most effective way to charge customers for their use. But there is devil in the detail: what tariffs are proposed?; what differences between customers will be tolerated?; Do/Will meter charges recover the full cost of metering and the service provided?

Metering is often chosen now because a household could reduce its bill- there is nothing wrong with that provided that they pay a reasonable price for the service that is provided. Metering adds about 10% to the average household bill; so if it encourages savings of broadly the same magnitude then it is beneficial. But as people switch from a tariff structure which deliberately contained a not insubstantial degree of social protection, how are those who benefitted to be protected when those who have opted to a meter no longer contribute? This is a matter for Government to resolve- not water companies and not regulators.

Anna Walker rightly suggests that the problem will become more acute. The differential between measured and unmeasured average bills continues to grow. Anna highlights the issue in the SouthWest, but it is becoming more common in other areas too.

This will encourage households to switch and leave those who pay the unmeasured rate with an ever higher bill. This will threaten the investment that the industry needs.

Comments

At 12/14/2009 8:18:27 AM, Scott R wrote:

Alan - It is increasingly questionable (at least in England & Wales) whether your comment on unmeasured charging - "a tariff structure which deliberately contained a not insubstantial degree of social protection" - actually holds to the extent it may have once did. When you look (as I have done) at the households who would lose  from being switched to metered charging the majority (about 2/3) are in the middle and high income brackets.  The reason is that RV is no longer a reasonable proxy for household incomes. Maybe it is better to identify methods of social protection that are better targeted and combined with metered tariffs (like Anna Walker's review is suggesting)?

At 12/14/2009 8:21:02 AM, Scott R wrote:

A further comment is that the same weak relationship with household income is also true for Council Tax bands (in E&W). It would be interesting to know if the same holds for Scotland.

At 1/6/2010 4:54:40 PM, JackD wrote:

Alan,
After being a water company bill payer in England previously (metered for the most part) and now a bill payer in Scotland I find it very difficult to swallow Scottish Water and the WICS claims on average bills being less than that of E&W. I live in a very similar property to the one in England but pay more than double for my water and sewerage charges due to the fact of now being un-metered in Scotland. However, I think a more pressing need for metering in Scotland is one of water conservation and making Scottish people appreciate, value and conserve water more than they currently do. The quicker the move to large scale metering in Scotland the better, for all of us including the planet!!

About Alan

Alan Sutherland

I’ve been Chief Executive of the Water Industry Commission for Scotland since its establishment in July 2005. Prior to that I was the Water Industry Commissioner for Scotland having been appointed to that role by Scottish Ministers in November 1999. In 1998 and 1999 I was a managing director of Wolverine CIS Ltd, a division of Wolverine World Wide. Prior to that I worked in strategic consultancy with Bain and Company and in the investment banking industry with Robert Fleming and Company.

Post Archive