Dear Editor,
Christopher Ram’s commentary on GPL (SN, April 27) was quite an eye-opener. Guyanese are definitely not receiving a square deal for the huge remuneration packages enjoyed by GPL managers, and also quite probably the members of the Board. This situation is, apparently, the outcome of enjoying years of existence as a monopoly. Top-heavy GPL was never forced to be competitive.
The Chairman, Mr W Brassington was reported at a recent press conference as explaining: “…last year GPL chose to forego $27 billion in revenue by refusing to impose tariff increases, which it would have every right to do. He said GPL continues to sacrifice this revenue, despite the fact that fuel prices, which comprise almost 80% of its expenditure, have doubled from about $60 million to around $120 million from 2006 to 2012.”
One would have expected that given the above, and within the context of the much-touted LCDS, that the advocacy of conservation of energy (a slowing down, or putting a brake on consumption over time) would have been a top priority for GPL. It is like having huge amounts of foreign reserves. Conser-vation energy can be viewed as an alternative source of energy, which can help us to cope with our energy problem in the near and medium terms. Surely, as a non-oil producing country, there ought to have been some vision that would have provided Guyanese with some amount of insulation against the vicissitudes of the global oil market.
Mr Ram’s suggestion that it is the consumer, who should foot the cost of energy generation, and not the taxpayer, is an extremely valid contention. Would a restructuring of the tariff schedule based upon the concept of a “graduated tariff beyond a basic essential consumption threshold,” help to reduce electricity theft? For example: Category 1 ‒ ‘basic essential consumption’ (house lights, refrigerator, radio, one TV/video player, clothes iron, fans, etc) $x/Kw; Category 2 – “desirable, but not essential” (basic essential consumption, plus microwave, toaster oven, cooking range, AC, washer/dryer, deep freeze, vacuum cleaner, 2TVs/ DVD players, stereophonic music system, etc.) $x+y, or $2x/Kw; Category 3 – “non-essential” (basic essential consumption, plus central air-conditioning, jacuzzi baths, closed circuit TV, surround sound/piped music, home theatre, pool room/bar, lawn lighting, etc) $x+y+z, or $4x/Kw. Or, could the residential tariff be lowered if certain household tasks are executed during off-peak periods?
In the same way that luxury goods attract higher taxes, those consumers who make greater demands on energy generation should pay correspondingly higher tariffs. At present the cost of residential electricity generation is borne equally by the rich and the poor. When it is borne in mind that the bulk of Guyana’s foreign exchange is earned through the labours of the poor – the mining and agricultural workers, this type of tariff schedule amounts to a subsidization of the ostentatious consumption of the ‘wealthy’ by the working poor, and this should not be allowed to continue.
Besides, being an inequity, there is no incentive to conserve or innovate, for example, in the design of buildings. Perhaps the LCDS is not applicable on the coastland, as an increasing number of high intensity energy using buildings now decorate our skyline.
The issue of the absence of a comprehensive national energy policy is the source of Guyana’s ad hocracy, and confusion in the energy sector. For example, on what set of data was the Amaila Falls project conceived? How much energy is used in the residential sector? How much energy is used in the agricultural sector? How much energy is used in the transport sector?
What has been the consumption pattern in each sector over a period of ‘x’ years? What can be done to promote greater energy efficiency in these sectors? Is the Low Carbon Development Strategy applicable on the coastland? If it isn’t, should it be? Should we be thinking of mass transport services? What policies, building codes, regulations, or measures were introduced to promote greater efficiency in the use of energy? Is the private sector doing as much as it can to help find solutions to Guyana’s energy problems? Are consumers fully aware of the role they can play? Answers to many more questions of a similar nature are essential before we are in a position to more accurately predict and plan for future energy needs.
Perhaps if GPL management and its Board were to initiate a national process and dialogue with other stakeholders that would eventually lead to an energy policy, they might become empowered to bring new perspectives and approaches to the solutions of GPL’s problems. There is nothing to lose. We all stand to gain.
Yours faithfully
Clarence O Perry
