Water charges for excessive usage

charlie14

charlie14 wrote: »

I`m afraid yet more of your attempts at deflection will not work this time.


You have repeatedly come out with your rubbish that those figures included set-up costs. I have provided you with them, and not for the first time either, so now show where these set-up figures are included.


If you do not have the good grace to admit they are not, then at least desist from repeating your fiction to suit your agenda.

The “figures” you’ve provided have no basis in fact. If you look closely at them, you’ll realise this for yourself. Just do a simple calculation on your €44 million per annum for meters plus whatever maintenance cost was.

charlie14

blanch152 wrote: »

Those are historical fantasy costs from the first year that Donnelly himself admitted he drew up on the back of an envelope and could well be wrong about. That didn't stop them becoming the bible for the we won't pay crowd. They bear no relation to how an updated system might work.

For a start, the income could be higher with higher pricing, which is one thing I would do, no point wanting conservation if the pricing doesn't encourage it. Secondly, the conservation grant isn't needed and should be abolished. Finally, the costs of metering weren't benchmarked against the costs of metering for Airtricity or someone else. For example, the costs bandied about were for metering every meter every month, when most utilities only check meters every few times they are due and work on estimated bills the rest of the time. All the assumptions in the workings were designed to make it as expensive as possible.

Actually, I don't know why I am explaining all this again to you, it was explained more than once at the time, but ignored.

I would expect that you could get domestic revenues of c400m and easily keep costs below 50m.

They only fantasy I can see is that 100% of households would pay. You care to point out any other ?


The "conservation grant" wasn`t Donnelly`s idea. It was FG`s so he rightly included it. Ironic it resulted in more claiming it than actually paid.
Doubly ironic if Donnelly`s figures were based on the real figures of payment and claims that the bottom line figure would have been much worse as the set up costs would still remain the same.



You have continually attempted to hold up metering in the U.K. as an example of good practice. No point complaining when it comes back to bite you in the ass.
Donnelly based his meter reading figure on U.K costs of service for metered customers.


I cannot remember you explaining anything related to this on the mega threads. I remember a poster with a different name when confronted with these figures whose standard reply was bluster, the word "debunked" and then running away though.



As to your revenue of 400M and easily keep costs under 50M I give that the credibility it is due coming from someone who believed the total cost of the metering fiasco was 200M

astrofool

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Wrong thread TBF. Like comparing a tax funded utility to a non-tax funded utility, (or batman's utility belt). A household ESB or Gas were never paid for through general taxation that I know of.

I'm asking because the cost of maintaining water meters is likely to be similar or lower than electricity or gas, which would shine a light on the actual annual costs post installation, as €44m sounds very high.

charlie14

Deleted User wrote: »

The “figures” you’ve provided have no basis in fact. If you look closely at them, you’ll realise this for yourself. Just do a simple calculation on your €44 million per annum for meters plus whatever maintenance cost was.

44 Million = 539Million amortised over 15 years and borrowed @ 1.5%.
To low IMHO compared to any company I was ever involved with when it came to depreciation costings.


Now yet again. Either have the grace to admit there are no set-up costs in those, (the fact that the 539 Million of the cost of meters aren`t there should make that clear if nothing else) or cut out your waffle that they are.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Wrong thread TBF. Like comparing a tax funded utility to a non-tax funded utility, (or batman's utility belt). A household ESB or Gas were never paid for through general taxation that I know of.

Matt, once again your grasp of facts, particularly historic ones is shown again to be tenuous at best.

Who do you think paid for Ardnacrusha, Turlough Hill and other early power stations? The Irish taxpayer.

Who do you think paid for the rural electrification scheme? The Irish taxpayer.

For most of its early years, the ESB received significant subsidisation from the government, while it built up its domestic and commercial income, similar to what was proposed for Irish Water.

charlie14

astrofool wrote: »

I'm asking because the cost of maintaining water meters is likely to be similar or lower than electricity or gas, which would shine a light on the actual annual costs post installation, as €44m sounds very high.

Already answered #1385.

blanch152

charlie14 wrote: »

They only fantasy I can see is that 100% of households would pay. You care to point out any other ?


The "conservation grant" wasn`t Donnelly`s idea. It was FG`s so he rightly included it. Ironic it resulted in more claiming it than actually paid.
Doubly ironic if Donnelly`s figures were based on the real figures of payment and claims that the bottom line figure would have been much worse as the set up costs would still remain the same.



You have continually attempted to hold up metering in the U.K. as an example of good practice. No point complaining when it comes back to bite you in the ass.
Donnelly based his meter reading figure on U.K costs of service for metered customers.


I cannot remember you explaining anything related to this on the mega threads. I remember a poster with a different name when confronted with these figures whose standard reply was bluster, the word "debunked" and then running away though.



As to your revenue of 400M and easily keep costs under 50M I give that the credibility it is due coming from someone who believed the total cost of the metering fiasco was 200M

It was O'Dowd, a favourite of the we won't pay crowd, who believed the total cost of the metering fiasco was 200m, I only quoted him.

Assuming that metering in a particular way in the UK would cost the same as metering in a different way in Ireland shows once again how back of the envelope Donnelly's calculations were, as he himself admitted several times but that doesn't stop internet posters repeating them years later as if they are the Bible. Actually, their relation to what actually happened is probably as accurate as the Bible.

markodaly

Matt Barrett wrote: »

You don't pay taxes?

Why dont we pay the ESB from our taxes?

blanch152

markodaly wrote: »

Why dont we pay the ESB from our taxes?

Easy question, the answer is because they charge their customers enough not to need subsidisation any more. That was the future planned for Irish Water.

charlie14

blanch152 wrote: »

It was O'Dowd, a favourite of the we won't pay crowd, who believed the total cost of the metering fiasco was 200m, I only quoted him.

Assuming that metering in a particular way in the UK would cost the same as metering in a different way in Ireland shows once again how back of the envelope Donnelly's calculations were, as he himself admitted several times but that doesn't stop internet posters repeating them years later as if they are the Bible. Actually, their relation to what actually happened is probably as accurate as the Bible.

There really is no end to your attempts at subterfuge is there!
You made great play of your link to O`Dowd`s claim as proof that the fiasco didn`t cost 1Billion euro.

As I said, no point now when after you holding metering in the U.K. up as best practice comes back to bite you in the ass when Donnelly used their methodology to calculate his meter reading costings.

If you have problems with Donnelly`s costing then how about you giving us your back of an envelope under the same headings.

In fact now that we now know what was actual paid and what was payed out under the conservation grant you could use those figures.

The only thing Biblical in that would be the bottom line

blanch152

charlie14 wrote: »

There really is no end to your attempts at subterfuge is there!
You made great play of your link to O`Dowd`s claim as proof that the fiasco didn`t cost 1Billion euro.

As I said, no point now when after you holding metering in the U.K. up as best practice comes back to bite you in the ass when Donnelly used their methodology to calculate his meter reading costings.

If you have problems with Donnelly`s costing then how about you giving us your back of an envelope under the same headings.

In fact now that we now know what was actual paid and what was payed out under the conservation grant you could use those figures.

The only thing Biblical in that would be the bottom line

The conservation grant is gone, so it has no relevance to the future re-introduction of water charges.

You are caught in the past, clinging to a battered envelope, the back of which has some imaginary scribbled numbers, which bears no resemblance to the current set-up of Irish Water. Past glories and all that, you can tell your grandchildren as they sip polluted water from a stream how you held the tide against water charges.

astrofool

charlie14 wrote: »

44 Million = 539Million amortised over 15 years and borrowed @ 1.5%.
To low IMHO compared to any company I was ever involved with when it came to depreciation costings.


Now yet again. Either have the grace to admit there are no set-up costs in those, (the fact that the 539 Million of the cost of meters aren`t there should make that clear if nothing else) or cut out your waffle that they are.

Ah, so it's not the annual cost of maintaining the meters, it's the cost of installing the meters in the first place, amortised over 15 years, which means after 15 years that there is a network of meters installed with a regular annual maintenance cost.

charlie14

blanch152 wrote: »

The conservation grant is gone, so it has no relevance to the future re-introduction of water charges.

You are caught in the past, clinging to a battered envelope, the back of which has some imaginary scribbled numbers, which bears no resemblance to the current set-up of Irish Water. Past glories and all that, you can tell your grandchildren as they sip polluted water from a stream how you held the tide against water charges.

You really remind me of a hen on a hot plate.
Hopping around looking for a cool spot when things get too hot for you.

Both you and Maryanne when challenged on your claims and disingenuous posts resort to nothing but waffle.

charlie14

astrofool wrote: »

Ah, so it's not the annual cost of maintaining the meters, it's the cost of installing the meters in the first place, amortised over 15 years, which means after 15 years that there is a network of meters installed with a regular annual maintenance cost.

The manufacturers lifespan for the meters is 15 years. It is primarily the same costings as on a company balance sheet allowing for depreciation on fixtures and fittings where in my experience was normally 10%.
For machinery that percentage would be in the 15% -20% range.

charlie14

charlie14 wrote: »

The manufacturers lifespan for the meters is 15 years. It is primarily the same costings as on a company balance sheet allowing for depreciation on fixtures and fittings where in my experience was normally 10%.
For machinery that percentage would be in the 15% -20% range.

A teeny tiny part of the meters has a lifespan of 15 years. That can be easily replaced. A bit like changing a lightbulb. The WHOLE meter won’t need be dug up and replaced! The ORIGINAL cost is a set up cost. A once off.

blanch152

charlie14 wrote: »

The manufacturers lifespan for the meters is 15 years. It is primarily the same costings as on a company balance sheet allowing for depreciation on fixtures and fittings where in my experience was normally 10%.
For machinery that percentage would be in the 15% -20% range.

Except that the cost of installing the meters isn't the same as the cost of replacing them.

There is an extensive programme at the moment replacing gas meters all round the country that is costing a fraction of the original cost of installing them (allowing for inflation).

P.S. Thanks for finally admitting that Donnelly's figures included set-up costs, you have been avoiding that for quite some time.

charlie14

blanch152 wrote: »

Except that the cost of installing the meters isn't the same as the cost of replacing them.

There is an extensive programme at the moment replacing gas meters all round the country that is costing a fraction of the original cost of installing them (allowing for inflation).

P.S. Thanks for finally admitting that Donnelly's figures included set-up costs, you have been avoiding that for quite some time.

You really do just throw out rubbish hoping it will go unchallenged and when it is you resort to subterfuge,


Both yourself and Maryanne`s argument were that Donnelly`s figures included recurring costs. I pointed out to you both that they did not that they were set-up costs.
P.S. Thank you for finally acknowledging that you were both wrong. Soomething both of you have been avoiding for a long time.


When it comes to even the basic practice of accountancy neither of you appear to have the foggiest idea as to what depreciation is, how it is calculated or what the purpose is.


Companies on their balance sheets set aside a year on year percentage of the value of there fixed assets so at the end of their lifespan they have money set aside for there replacement.
Companies generally front load this percentage against profits so that the finances are available for replacement should these assets not reach their estimated lifespan.
In Donnelly`s figures he did not do this, recognising that their would be little chance of profits so set the percentage over the manufacturers estimated lifespan of the meters, 15 years.

You are inadvertently correct in one area as IMO the figure of 44M should have been higher to account for inflation as per your remark on gas meters.


I reallly do not know why I have to point this out to both you and Maryanne. It really is basic accountancy practice where if anything Donnelly was over generous with his 44M figure.

charlie14

Deleted User wrote: »

A teeny tiny part of the meters has a lifespan of 15 years. That can be easily replaced. A bit like changing a lightbulb. The WHOLE meter won’t need be dug up and replaced! The ORIGINAL cost is a set up cost. A once off.

See my reply to Blanch.
B.T.W. Donnelly did not list the figure of the WHOLE cost of the meter in his figures.

That is unless you somehow can find a figure of 539M that was included in total in those set up cost ??

James Brown

Deleted User wrote: »

The “figures” you’ve provided have no basis in fact. If you look closely at them, you’ll realise this for yourself. Just do a simple calculation on your €44 million per annum for meters plus whatever maintenance cost was.

What about my figures? With 100% compliance IW metering would bring in just shy of 300m. That's less than the cost of keeping it's lights on with zero work on mains.

astrofool wrote: »

I'm asking because the cost of maintaining water meters is likely to be similar or lower than electricity or gas, which would shine a light on the actual annual costs post installation, as €44m sounds very high.

Fair enough. Might be tough to find out as they work that into the billing I'd imagine. The above figures likely don't have that cost associated, early days and all.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

Matt, once again your grasp of facts, particularly historic ones is shown again to be tenuous at best.

I'm quoting the Irish Examiner quoting the state/IW. It's what it cost to run IW, (metering deployment not included) verses the most metering can expect to bring in with 100% compliance.
What's to grasp? Maybe acknowledge that in honesty and save us all some time.

blanch152 wrote: »

Who do you think paid for Ardnacrusha, Turlough Hill and other early power stations? The Irish taxpayer.

Who do you think paid for the rural electrification scheme? The Irish taxpayer.

For most of its early years, the ESB received significant subsidisation from the government, while it built up its domestic and commercial income, similar to what was proposed for Irish Water.

Agreed. The figures I laid out were regarding running the company not anything to do with initial set up or metering.

However, 2016 has proven to be the costliest year to date. While capital contributions dropped to a low of €184m, the operating subvention rose to a high of €479m.
https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/irish-water-has-cost-state-2bn-768178.html

Almost two-thirds of liable households (64%, or 975,000 people) paid domestic water charges in 2015.

The total amount collected over the year was €144m which was 53% of the total income due from domestic charges during 2015.
https://www.thejournal.ie/irish-water-4-2860469-Jul2016/

So to run the quango itself, (no metering costs, no consultant costs, no zombie turkey etc.) €479m give or take a mill. Metering intake on 100% compliance, being generous, €300m. Even allowing for a cheap year, the metering is unlikely to pay for admin staff and the electric.
Grasp that please.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I'm quoting the Irish Examiner quoting the state/IW. It's what it cost to run IW, (metering deployment not included) verses the most metering can expect to bring in with 100% compliance.
What's to grasp? Maybe acknowledge that in honesty and save us all some time.



Agreed. The figures I laid out were regarding running the company not anything to do with initial set up or metering.





So to run the quango itself, (no metering costs, no consultant costs, no zombie turkey etc.) €479m give or take a mill. Metering intake on 100% compliance, being generous, €300m. Even allowing for a cheap year, the metering is unlikely to pay for admin staff and the electric.
Grasp that please.

The €479m pays for the water treatment, the sewage treatment and the normal maintenance and repairs (not the capital investment). So €300m covers for a lot of that.

Increase the rates to close the difference, I've no problem with that, that was always how I thought it would work out.

McMurphy

Let it go lads.

It's over, they had a good try at it, but they fcuked it up, it's gone, finished, no more - it's OVER!!!!

blanch152

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Let it go lads.

It's over, they had a good try at it, but they fcuked it up, it's gone, finished, no more - it's OVER!!!!

Water charges are still on the statute book, they haven't been abolished.

A few more boil water notices in Dublin and people will be shouting for Irish Water to be given more money to fix the problems, that will start the conversation again, watch this space.

charlie14

blanch152 wrote: »

Water charges are still on the statute book, they haven't been abolished.

A few more boil water notices in Dublin and people will be shouting for Irish Water to be given more money to fix the problems, that will start the conversation again, watch this space.

The statute could be tattooed across Dinny`s forehead for all the difference it makes.

They are dead.

Plumbthedepths

Looking forward to Water charges 2.0. ;-) FG got their rear ends kicked before, be nice to see a replay.
They might sway opinion if they follow through with a referendum.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

Water charges are still on the statute book, they haven't been abolished.

A few more boil water notices in Dublin and people will be shouting for Irish Water to be given more money to fix the problems, that will start the conversation again, watch this space.

'They haven't gone away you know'?
You're like the Wild Geese expecting an uprising any day now and they can return head held high.
Regardless Blanch, as it was, it will never be again. Even if it were it still wouldn't pay for itself let alone any infrastructural repairs. The environment spend is better off without it. It's cheaper to just pay for the mains rebuild, like we do for water, through taxes.

Brendan Bendar

Matt Barrett wrote: »

'They haven't gone away you know'?
You're like the Wild Geese expecting an uprising any day now and they can return head held high.
Regardless Blanch, as it was, it will never be again. Even if it were it still wouldn't pay for itself let alone any infrastructural repairs. The environment spend is better off without it. It's cheaper to just pay for the mains rebuild, like we do for water, through taxes.

and thus ensuring that water consumption or conservation figures will never find its way to the perpretator.

Shure we’ll just keep pumping out clean potable water , which costs big money to manage and maintain,and they can piss it off out of the taps anyway they like.

Has to remind me of the Cash for Ash stuff up the North, the more you burned the better off you were.

Lads were lighting fires in outbuildings just to keep the income going.

Not a good way to run things, one would have to opine.

Of course,fine if you were ,whats the word, ‘offroad’ and as they say’ not really on the books’ tip away happy in the knowledge that if taxes go up you will only be affected minimally, irrespective of water consumption.

Lookit.... it’s done now and will take decades to sort out.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

'They haven't gone away you know'?
You're like the Wild Geese expecting an uprising any day now and they can return head held high.
Regardless Blanch, as it was, it will never be again. Even if it were it still wouldn't pay for itself let alone any infrastructural repairs. The environment spend is better off without it. It's cheaper to just pay for the mains rebuild, like we do for water, through taxes.

I don't care which is cheaper.

Water charges reduce consumption and encourage conservation.

Crock Rock

Why is there such an aversion to water meters here?

When I lived in the Netherlands they had water billing, it was a miniscule it was about €1.50 per 1,000 Litres (one cubic metre).

From a quick google, the average person uses 130 litres of water per person per day, 130x4x365 = 189,800 litres per 4-person household per year, or 189.8 cubic metres.

At a rate of €1.50 per cubic metre, that amounts to €284.70 per year, or just under €5.50 per week for the whole house or €1.37 per person ..... the mind boggles.

Dutch tap water is so immaculate that I wouldn't hesitate to feed it to my infant nephew without boiling or sterilising. The same water feeds the kitchen and jacks in the Netherlands too. If you want good water, at least pay something.

BTW, why were there mass protests over water but none over the extortionate amount of USC that I, and others pay all year???

James Brown

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

and thus ensuring that water consumption or conservation figures will never find its way to the perpretator.

Shure we’ll just keep pumping out clean potable water , which costs big money to manage and maintain,and they can piss it off out of the taps anyway they like.

Has to remind me of the Cash for Ash stuff up the North, the more you burned the better off you were.

Lads were lighting fires in outbuildings just to keep the income going.

Not a good way to run things, one would have to opine.

Of course,fine if you were ,whats the word, ‘offroad’ and as they say’ not really on the books’ tip away happy in the knowledge that if taxes go up you will only be affected minimally, irrespective of water consumption.

Lookit.... it’s done now and will take decades to sort out.

TBF, I summoned you with my prose.
We are way under any proposed consumption cap.
You tell middle Ireland you want to throw good money after bad, they won't wear it Bren, I say they won't wear it.
Instead of wasting money on metering that won't pay for itself, pay to have the pipes fixed, c'mon now, stop the messin' outta dat.