The nation’s power consumption has continued hitting high levels over recent weeks as temperatures keep rising, but state-run utility Taiwan Power Co (Taipower) has assured the public that electricity rationing will not be implemented as long as power generators function normally and the public conserves electricity.
Well, that might be what people want to hear, since businesses and the public routinely face annual summer hikes in electricity rates set by Taipower, which is the nation’s largest electricity supplier and monopolistic grid operator. Electricity price increases from 13 percent are in line with the spike in demand for power during the hot summer months up until Sept. 30.
Yet, what people may not like to hear are allegations that Taipower colluded with privately owned power firms, known as independent power providers (IPPs), to rip off taxpayers through what they say are regular business contracts between them. The public wants to know if Taipower is really being coerced by some IPPs for profiteering, as it has claimed.
In March and November last year, the Fair Trade Commission twice sanctioned nine IPPs for collaborating to sabotage price renegotiations with Taipower from 2008 to 2012. However, the fines of NT$6.32 billion and NT$6.05 billion (US$210.4 million and US$201 million) that the commission levied on the nine firms were revoked by the Cabinet’s Petitions and Appeals Committee in September last year and in May this year respectively. The Cabinet then demanded that the commission reconsider the fines based on the companies’ different cost structures and levels of compliance.
The revocations sounded reasonable, but aroused strong discontent among the public, with many believing that these IPPs profited from unethical conduct and that their behavior has increased Taipower’s deficit, which consequently raises electricity rates. On July 9, the commission upheld its price collusion ruling against the IPPs, but reduced the combined penalty to NT$6.01 billion by maintaining the amount that Mai Liao Power Corp, Ever Power IPP Co and Hoping Power Co had to pay at NT$1.81 billion, NT$1.32 billion and NT$610 million respectively, but reducing by between NT$2 million and NT$11 million the fines for the six other firms.
Certainly, these IPPs have the right to appeal the case to the Cabinet again. However, if the Petitions and Appeals Committee were to reject the commission’s decision for a third time, it could convey a message to the public that the government does not want the case to proceed. Moreover, it means that Taipower in the future would be under no pressure to get serious about the terms of electricity purchase contracts it has with IPPs, especially with some of the private firms that are reinvestment units of Taiwan Cogeneration Corp, which is actually a subsidiary of Taipower.
Little wonder, then, that Taipower has struck overly generous purchasing contracts with these IPPs in the past, considering their complicated shareholding relationships — some retired senior Taipower executives are even in high-ranking positions at these IPPs — and the low financial transparency and poor disclosure of information at the state-run utility.
If the commission’s ruling does not prevail this time, it will only encourage the bad corporate habits in state-run companies in terms of bureaucratic corruption and careless management. In addition, it would tell those Taipower veterans at IPPs that they can still do whatever they want and taxpayers will continue to be ripped off. How sad.
After all, it is the lack of competition that is the core problem with Taipower and the nation’s electricity issues. If Taiwanese remain grossly uninformed or even misinformed about the supply and prices of electricity by a state monopoly, and the nation’s power generation and distribution market continues to be held under tight control by Taipower, it seems that controversies over the electricity issue will never abate. Unfortunately, the nation lacks a government that is willing to offer solutions to these issues.
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations