Top of the list is Macquarie Generation, a state owned generator in the Hunter Valley with a couple of coal fired plants. According to Bolt, with a tax of $26 a tonne, Macquarie will have to pay $613 million in carbon taxes.
In 2010, Macquarie had total revenue of $1,157 million. Take away expenses and taxes etc, and profit ended up being $196 million.
I have seen some rather deranged comments by leftoids saying that it would be eeeeevil if companies put their prices up and "gouged" consumers.
Hmm. They make a profit of $196 million, but then get slugged with an extra $613 million in costs - and it's eeeevil of them to put their prices up?
I think not.
Still, what we do now is that in order for Macquarie to continue making a reasonable profit (it has to make a profit as it owes $800 million, and that has to be paid back out of profits), it's going to have to increase its revenue by just over 50%. Which of course will feed straight into our power bills.
Now you can argue that the purpose of the carbon tax is to force a company like Macquarie to give up coal and go renewable. However, that ignores the fact that they'll have to write off $3.4 billion worth of power stations, whilst paying off $800 million of debt. That hit of course will have to be taken by the NSW taxpayer, either through higher taxes or higher power bills. Either way, we're fucked.
4 comments:
"Still, what we do now is that in order for Macquarie to continue making a reasonable profit (it has to make a profit as it owes $800 million, and that has to be paid back out of profits), it's going to have to increase its revenue by just over 50%. Which of course will feed straight into our power bills"
Best argument I've seen in a long time for the nationalisation of the energy sector.....
1735099 - how does this make a case for nationalisation?
Macquarie Generation (according to their website) is state owned and supplying electricity in to the National market.
So correct me if I am wrong - you think a national government would do the job better than the NSW Govt? Actually probably no need to answer that one. However i just don't see where given the track record of the public sector we get cheaper power by having it nationalised.
We still end up paying for the infrastructure one way or the other. The question is can the private sector do it cheaper in a semi-transparent way, or does the public sector do it cheaper in a less transparent way?
At least with nationalization there are far fewer snouts in the trough. No shareholders, no CEOs earning obscene amounts to keep the corporation "competitive" and the vital resources are owned by the taxpayer.
The principle of Contestability is one of the most corrupt dogmas persisting in the big end of town.
So I'm all for a greener world but this policy does seem to lack a complete thought process and how it will eventually impact on the community. It would be great, but I know I'm dreaming, if politicians looked to implement programs with longer term goals rather than those that aim for a quick fix before the next election.
Post a Comment