Homeowner blindsided as daily power charges increase 600%
A South Island property classified as remote now incurs a might higher power lines fee for electricity.
Photo:
RNZ / Cole Eastham-Farrelly
The owner of a Marlborough Sounds property facing a 600 percent increase in daily power changes says he's been blindsided.
Mark, who did not want to be identified, has owned the bach for five years.
He said his power bill had previously been $50 or $60 a month but he had just been advised of a large increase in his daily fixed charge, which would rise from 60 cents to $4.24.
"I have spoken to one or two other residents who are also a bit shocked but apathy or lack of awareness is also out there.
"I am seriously considering going off-grid if I keep the property, though selling is definitely an option. Property values will likely drop though as the appeal of owning a property where supply is so expensive will wane."
He said Powerswitch now estimated his bill would be more than $3000 a year if he spent 60 days a year there.
"We are told that the cost to supply to remote areas is the problem, but the infrastructure is in place and there is almost no expansion as there are no more sections being developed.
"I was also told by Genesis call centre that there is no option to suspend supply if not occupying a property for a few months - the daily charges would still apply and even to decommission altogether would face a charge."
Lines charges are increasing around the country after the Commerce Commission approved transmission price increases from the start of April.
On top of that, the
low-user scheme is being phased out
, which means a 30c-per-day increase in fixed charges for people affected.
There was pressure on the price of electricity as well.
Mark said he had been quoted up to $30,000 to go off grid but it could pay for itself in a decade.
Genesis said the price increase had been heightened because of a change specific to Mark's circumstances.
"The local lines company in Marlborough service the area and classify the customer as remote, due to their location in the Marlborough Sounds.
"The lines company's daily charge has increased from $3.11 to $4.00. Previously, only 60c of the fee was passed on to the customer who was on a low-user plan.
"That low-user plan is not available for this customer now based on the lines company rating the property as remote and being a secondary property (bach).
"The full charge from the lines company is now being included in the bill."
Marlborough Lines said, if the connection was remote, it should have been on its remote price plan.
It had a ministerial exemption that allowed it not to offer low-user prices to remote connections.
"The daily fixed charge for that is much higher than a low-user daily fixed charge - note though that our variable charges for low users is considerably higher than variable charges for other connections.
"It's possible that the retailer had their customer on a low-user plan, but we did not as they were remote and not eligible.
"The retailer may have at some point moved them off their low-user plan after realising we had them on a remote plan."
Powerswitch general manger Paul Fuge said there was no obligation for power companies to offer a low-fixed charge option to baches.
"When customers sign up with a retailer, they are usually asked whether the property is their primary residence. However, it's unclear what verification processes - if any - retailers use to confirm this.
"While I don't have specific data, it wouldn't be surprising if some consumers have signed up secondary residences with retailers as their primary home to access the LFC option.
"It's unlikely to be straightforward for a retailer or lines company to determine otherwise," Fuge said.
"They might attempt to use other data sets - or assess consumption patterns, but with today's diverse household usage profiles, that approach would be challenging and unreliable.
"In our experience, some retailers and lines companies are more diligent than others when it comes to checking this.
"That said, I've never seen a case where a household already on an LFC option was removed based on a determination that the property wasn't a primary residence - though it may happen occasionally, it doesn't appear to be common, at least based on the complaints we receive."
Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero,
a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
4 hours ago
- RNZ News
Carrington Resort trial: Former manager defends actions in court
By Shannon Pitman, Open Justice reporter of Belle Mumby (inset) defended forgery charges related to her time working at Carrington Resort. Photo: Supplied / NZME / Open Justice A judge-alone trial against a former manager of a luxury resort accused of fraudulent behaviour has wrapped up but not before she had her say, painting a picture of mounting workloads and rightful entitlements. "I could foresee it would get worse," Belle Mumby said, defending the long hours she claims were justified, despite the resort's insistence otherwise. The former Carrington Resort operations manager has spent the past two weeks facing charges of theft, deception, and forgery in a judge-alone trial in the Whangārei District Court. The Crown alleges Mumby photocopied CEO Jing Ma's signature on an overtime form and claimed payments she wasn't entitled to. She is also accused of using the company account for personal purchases and selling resort-owned equipment - a trailer and post rammer - for $3000 and keeping the proceeds. Mumby maintains Ma approved the photocopied overtime document because she was often unavailable to sign off. She also claims the purchases were for the resort and argues the equipment was unusable, with Ma allegedly pocketing some of the funds. The prosecution's key witness, Ma, faced five days of cross-examination by defence lawyer Wayne McKean. She repeatedly asserted Mumby had stolen from the resort and that none of the overtime claims, purchases, or equipment sales were authorised. Before Mumby took the stand on Tuesday, the resort's payroll clerk, Wendy Weng, said all the overtime forms needed approval with a higher authority signature. Weng was presented an email from Mumby which stated Ma was happy for her to sign off her leave forms from now on. Weng also assumed this included overtime as well. "I saw Jing was included in this email so I assumed Jing was in agreement and she didn't reply otherwise," Weng said. Mumby, taking the stand on Tuesday, said she foresaw her overtime hours increasing as summer approached and waiting for the CEO to sign off was impossible as she was never there. Belle Mumby said she was authorised to do the overtime and purchase items. Photo: Supplied / NZME / Open Justice She claimed Ma suggested signing blank forms that she could later photocopy and complete based on hours worked. "She indicated to me she would come less and less in the future so I [asked] her 'So what happens to my overtime?' I need the verification'," Mumby said. "She suggest[ed] no need to worry about that, she would sign on the blank form and I would go to photocopy it and fill out whatever hours I did, then I can claim it." Mumby said she followed the procedure she was told to do. Regarding the alleged unlawful purchases such as AirPods, iPads, a phone, security cameras and Oral B electric toothbrushes, Mumby insisted they were for the resort or for her job productivity. Ma had previously given evidence that the post rammer and trailer that Mumby allegedly sold were valued at $100,000. But Mumby said both the items were sitting with a pile of rusted machinery, were of no use and sold for $3000. During cross-examination by Crown lawyer Danica Soich, it was suggested to her that clients would never use Oral B electric toothbrushes that may have been previously used by others. Soich pointed out that several items purchased on the resort's account were found at Mumby's house or in her car, including an unopened security system. "There was never a plan to return those items, was there?" Soich asked. "No, I was going to bring them back after sorting myself out from Hong Kong," Mumby replied. "You felt entitled to more than what you were receiving from Carrington?" Soich pressed. "No, I'm happy," Mumby responded. "You bought those items for yourself," Soich alleged. "No, that is wrong," Mumby countered. Mumby said that upon her return from her trip to Hong Kong, she was brought into Ma's office, fired and promised a discussion that never happened. The trial closed on Thursday and Judge Taryn Bayley has reserved her decision. * This story originally appeared in the New Zealand Herald.
RNZ News
8 hours ago
- RNZ News
Māori, Pacific removed from extra education funding priorities
The Tertiary Education Commission warns it doesn't have enough money to cover enrolment growth next year. Photo: AFP The government will remove extra funding for Māori and Pacific enrolments in vocational courses, and trim funding for workplace training. The Tertiary Education Commission told institutions this week it was "reprioritising a small amount - approximately 8 percent - of learner component funding towards provider-based delivery rates, through the removal of Māori and Pacific learners as an eligible category". The weightings for Māori and Pacific enrolments were worth $152 for each student enrolling in work-based level 1-2 certificates and courses at levels 3-6, and $364 per student in non-degree level 7 courses. However, the $1327 weighting for disabled students and students with low prior educational achievement would continue. The payments were added to subsidies for courses offered by polytechnics and private providers, ranging from $6584 for humanities and business courses to nearly $11,786 for health, science, engineering and agriculture, and $19,753 for special agriculture. The commission said funding for work-based training and education would drop 10 percent, while also repeating warnings from earlier in the year that it would not have enough money to cover enrolment growth next year . "Current forecasts indicate the demand for funding will be greater than what we have available to allocate," it said. "Given the multi-year nature of much education and training, we will need to prioritise our future investment." Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
RNZ News
14 hours ago
- RNZ News
Should I contribute to KiwiSaver or pay mortgage faster? Ask Susan
The short answer is it depends. Photo: RNZ I was wondering, is it better to invest more in your KiwiSaver or into your mortgage? We are lucky and have a little bit of extra cash every pay, so we have been making additional mortgage repayments. With the upcoming changes to KiwiSaver, we won't be able to continue to do this if we don't opt out. What is the better option? My thinking is the lower the mortgage, the less interest we pay, which would see us better off in the long term. Fisher Funds Kiwisaver general manager David Boyle says he has received questions like this over the years and the answer is: "it depends". "It's hard to know, without knowing the total financial position and how long they've got until they retire," he said. "Paying more off your mortgage and contributing to KiwiSaver are both smart choices, if you find yourself with a bit of money leftover before payday. "To help with this here are some things they should consider if they keep paying a bit more off the mortgage." It's probably worth talking to a financial adviser about this. If you opt to focus on paying your mortgage faster, you might need a plan to get you on track for retirement, once that loan is gone. The increase to contributions of 4 percent is stepped over the next couple of years. Are you likely to receive a pay rise over that period that will help you continue paying a bit off your mortgage, as well as contribute a bit more? You also have the option to temporarily lower your contribution rate back to 3 percent if you want. I am the epitome of being a victim of the government's totally unfair direct deduction policy. I should have started receiving my richly deserved superannuation when I qualified for it 9.5 years ago and the Winter Energy Payments seven years ago when they began. Consequently, over $300,000 has been stolen from me and I live in abject poverty as a result. I am a dual citizen from America. I have lived here 19.5 years, so on what legal basis has the government for denying the WEPs? Its written explanation is that it would be difficult to administer to NZ seniors not currently receiving a government benefit such as superannuation. That is mind boggling and I hope you see fit to write about this outrageous treatment of nearly 100,000 Kiwi seniors. Sorry, yes, I've checked with the ministry and it confirms that people who are not getting NZ Super because of an overseas pension cannot get the Winter Energy Payment. Generally, if your NZ Super entitlement has been eliminated by your overseas pension, it's because what you receive from overseas is more than the NZ Super payment. Send your questions to Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
