Edenor and Edesur will face the public hearing on Tuesday for the increases in electricity rates. The regulator (Enre) produced a report summarizing the positions of the companies, but both disputed its conclusions. Edenor described them as “Certain errors or biases that can be confusing for those who are not immersed in the subject of tariff reviews ”. Edesur states that the regulator objects to the energy policy of the previous administration, but that “to date there is no complaint in the administrative or judicial headquarters in which make explicit what or which rules of the current regulatory framework were breached” previously.
Both Edenor and Edesur consider that Enre made several errors in its status report. Edesur considers that the Enre attributes a different increase to the one they asked for.
The distributors believe that a large part of the increases in 2016 and 2019 went to the coffers of the electric generators, so that the State has to subsidize them less, and not to the boxes of the companies, as argued by the Enre.
In the ENRE report, the removal of subsidies from the previous administration resulted in an “improvement in the income of the concessionaires.” “There was no such transfer of income from the distributors, but rather a replacement of the subsidies that were previously charged by the national State for a greater participation of users in the coverage of the costs of the service provided by the distributors, “Edenor clarifies.
The National Electricity Regulatory Entity reported that Edesur and Edenor they asked for increases of 81% and 157%, respectively in the rates and raised a reduction in the service quality indicators. The distributors believe that there is an erroneous interpretation of the information given in their presentations. Edenor requested a 31% recomposition in the final invoice (which would be 28% for residential customers) and Edesur required 45% (which would be 38% for households).
According to Edesur and Edenor, the higher amounts on the ballots were not for these companies to obtain higher revenues, but for the national State to have to pay fewer subsidies for electricity generation. When distributors cannot pay for the electricity they are distributing, Cammesa – controlled by the state – takes care of the difference. The national state pays it off through subsidies.
“As can be seen from the recreation of the audit charts, the increase was largely due to the elimination of wholesale energy price subsidies (and distribution when compared to 2015). The incidence of CPD (N. of R: own costs of distribution. Or margins of distributors) of residential users fell from 56% on average to only 21.2%. In commercials the incidence was reduced from 71% to 53.9% “, paints Edesur.
Both Edesur and Edenor believe that the Enre it contradicts itself. “The audit itself in the review of energy policy in Chapter 4 shows that the transfers were from users to the State, and as the audit indicates, the main strategy was to reduce subsidies to the sector. This is evidenced mainly in the higher transfer of wholesale prices to tariffs, but also when the distribution segment is analyzed. In particular, the audit itself in Chapter 7 states exactly the opposite of the preceding statement ”; criticizes Edesur.
“The final report is also contradictory: on the one hand, the tariffs resulting from the RTI are criticized because they were – in the opinion of the regulator – excessive or inapplicable and, on the other hand, the non-use of a method that would have produced tariffs substantially superiors “, explains Edenor.
The Enre details that both Edenor and Edesur had lower consumption than they expected between 2016 and 2019. That the recompositions that they had requested – based on those volumes – were out of date with the real numbers.
The companies also question the methodology applied to the Enre to calculate its future income. “To determine the capital base under the RTI, the ENRE chose to use the methodology based on the New Replacement or Replacement Value (VNR), a widely accepted method.” “However, in various parts of the Final Report it is stated that” the choice of methodology to obtain capital costs it was not sufficiently founded ‘ and that it was not properly analyzed why the method based on the Cash Flow was not used, “according to Edenor.
.
#Hearing #rates #Edenor #Edesur #refute #official #arguments #insist #increases
source https://pledgetimes.com/hearing-for-rates-edenor-and-edesur-will-refute-official-arguments-and-insist-with-increases-of-up-to-38/
Disqus comments