Whoever came up with the idea that the new water and electricity tariffs are based on the ‘polluter pays’ principle, has no understanding of this terminology.

The basic principle behind this term is that those who waste energy or are wealthy enough to afford it beyond normal basic needs, are made to pay for their deeds to such an extent that it forces them to reduce usage while on the other hand it reduces the burden on those responsible citizens who spend money on other methods to help reduce energy use. If anything, this new tariff system does the exact opposite for wasteful households.

The pro rata electrical equivalent consumption to benefit from any form of eco reduction is 2000 units per annum for a person living alone and 1750 units per annum per person for more than one individual registered per household. The water quota is 33 cubic meters per person per year. I believe that in themselves these figures are quite reasonable.

Below I am presenting four scenarios of a family of four with different consumption patterns and their respective bills over a period of 31 days.

Scenario 1 – A family of four using slightly less than the quotas mentioned above, i.e. a total of 585 electrical units and 11 water units over a 31-day period. The bill (calculated from www.mybill.com.mt) for this household will be e102.42, which is a 5.5 per cent increase over the old rate of e97.07.

Scenario 2 – Now consider a family of four who uses slightly more than the quotas mentioned above, say a total of 605 electrical units and 11.4 water units over the same 31-day period. They will get a bill of e128.20, a 25.4 per cent increase over the old bill of e102.26.

Scenario 3 – Let us consider a very wasteful family of four consuming 3000 electrical units and 60 water units over the said period. This will land them with a bill of e904.09, which is just 8.3 per cent more than their previous bill of e834.63.

Scenario 4 – For the last scenario consider a frugal family of four who has invested in a solar water heater and a water reservoir using rain water whenever possible and who take all the necessary precautions to reduce consumption. Let’s say they consume 185 electrical units and 5 water units during 31 days. Their new bill will be e36.86, a staggering 78.4 per cent more than their previous one of e20.66.

From this simple exercise one notes that those clients who consume slightly above the stated quotas, have an incentive to reduce consumption since this will reduce their bill by 25 per cent, but on the other hand it actually encourages the wasteful class of society to keep their lavish lifestyle because their bill will only increase by less than 10 per cent. It is very clear that there is no form of ‘polluter pays’ principle for extreme users. Let’s face it, if they can afford a monthly bill of e830.00, not much will change for them if they pay e900.00 instead. But those families, who invested their money more wisely, have seen their efforts rewarded by having their bill nearly doubled.

If justice is to be served and at the same time the country goes green, the tariffs have to be changed in a way that the lower rates are made even cheaper and the higher rates are made much more expensive in order to encourage efficient use and at the same time discourage waste by those who can afford it. By doing so, the wasteful behaviour by some will sponsor the responsible behaviour of many citizens, reduce the overall power demand of the country, increase the percentage of renewable energy generated and at the same time the government will still get its planned revenue.

Adrian Gatt

SLIEMA