Minister of the Interior Lee Hong-yuan (李鴻源) has complained about environmental groups’ failure to support the government’s policy on fuel and electricity price hikes. He is, he says, very disappointed in them.
Increasing electricity prices to make them more adequately reflect cost is necessary if the aim is to promote energy conservation and a more secure society. However, the current price increase policy has some key problems.
First, the public has yet to be told what the price of electricity is at cost. What it does know is that corruption exists within Taiwan Power Co (Taipower), that there are excessively high levels of reserve electricity and that the government has been heavily subsidizing the price of electricity. There has been no investigation into these matters and the government has decided to press ahead with the increases without consulting the public. It really is no wonder that the policy has been so controversial.
Second, on the eve of World Environment Day this year, eco-oriented groups conducted a review of the government’s energy policy over the four years since President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) took office. They concluded that Ma’s 2008 campaign promise of an energy tax law has come to naught, languishing in the Cabinet, and a greenhouse gas reduction act has been stalled in the legislature because of a reluctance to iron out the all-important timetable and connected targets. Despite all the talk about carbon trading, the government has failed to deliver on the most crucial carbon reduction policy.
It is quite clear that the price rises are being introduced simply to address the losses made by Taipower and have nothing to do with reducing carbon emissions or conserving energy.
Third, independent estimates suggest that, between 2007 and 2010, the government sold electricity to companies below cost price and spent more than NT$230 billion (US$7.69 billion) to provide this subsidy throughout a four year period. Selling electricity at such a low price gave firms absolutely no incentive to save energy. Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC, 台積電), a major user of power, has said that its energy-saving policies were primarily due to corporate responsibility, not cost-saving considerations.
In the past, the government consistently denied that it had effected these kinds of subsidies and people are still in the dark as to exactly how much it really paid out. Industry accounts for over half the nation’s electricity consumption, so if prices are raised, the government should first announce how much has been spent on subsidizing enterprises. The price that industries pay for their electricity should be the first to reflect the increases.
Finally, if the government really intended the price increases to suppress demand for electricity it should have looked at Germany, where the government has announced zero, or even minus, growth in electricity consumption as a policy goal. Taipower, on the contrary, has plans to expand its electricity output over the next 18 years to cater to ever-increasing demand.
In addition to seven new power plants, with a combined budget of NT$916 billion, it also wants to build another 20 coal-fired units and 22 gas-fired units. It obviously sees the public as a cash cow and this is completely at odds with government policy.
It is only fair that electricity prices are allowed to increase by a reasonable amount. However, in the absence of any information given on the true costs of power generation, with no debate with society or a new energy resource policy, the increases are clearly effected simply to make up for Taipower’s losses.
When the government has these kinds of policies, it is hard to see how environmental groups are going click the “like” button.
Lee Ken-cheng is director of Mercy on the Earth, Taiwan.
Translated by Paul Cooper
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis and
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and