Affinity Water are working to significantly reduce the amount of water taken from sensitive sites and making changes to river channels and banks to help improve flow and biodiversity within the river. These are set out by the Environment Agency and are mandatory, so Affinity Water must do them.
1. Were you aware of Affinity working to these requirements? How does this make you feel?
2. Thinking of other areas you would like Affinity to prioritise, is there anything that you think Affinity should put above these environmental goals? If so, what are these?
- What about repairing leaks/ infrastructure repairs/ achieving Carbon Net Zero by switching to self-generated solar power? Do you think Affinity should prioritise these over environmental work? Why/ why not?
I have mixed feelings about the brief information statement. The first sentence makes it sound as though Affinity Water is behaving virtuously, and is expecting praise from people who are concerned about the environment. The second sentence states that the behaviours are mandatory, thereby negating any virtue in the motivation to carry them out. Indeed, as the behaviours are mandatory, I am left puzzled about the purpose of requesting my opinion.
I have searched through the Environment Agency website and cannot identify the documents that set out the environmental responsibilities of water companies. I have no idea how detailed nor how onerous these responsibilities are.
I suppose that my response to Q.1 is: "As these requirements are mandatory, I should be surprised were Affinity Water were not attempting to work to them."
Q.2 asks me to prioritise four things:
1. Repairing leaks (thereby wasting less water, with the consequent need to abstract less)
2. Repairing infrastructure (thereby increasing the resilience of clean water delivery)
3. Generating solar power (thereby reducing carbon dioxide emissions)
4. Looking after the riverside environment
Points 1 and 2 are about the raison d'être of Affinity Water: the business exists to deliver clean water, and if it falls short of doing so then it is failing. Points 1, 3 and 4 concern the negative effect of the business on the natural environment. Whilst I consider all of these to be a duty not to be shirked, I guess that I have also listed them in my priority order, although I would prefer 3 and 4 to be listed as equal third.
Beyond these goals, set out by the Environment Agency, Affinity Water could go further by accelerating the implementation of these projects, or increasing the scope to deliver wider environmental benefits than they are legally required to.
1. Do you think they should stick to the required targets, or increase the scope of these goals? Why/ why not?
2. Additional targets/accelerated timelines may result in an increase to your monthly bill - how do you feel about this?
- Is there an amount that you feel would be fair to contribute towards broader environmental goals?
- Is there an amount/increase that starts to feel unfair?
My immediate response to Q1 is to want to know:
1. What are the specific responsibilities that are mandatory?
2. How completely are those responsibilities currently being met?
On the one hand I see no reason to limit environmental targets to mandatory responsibilities, but if they are not currently being met, then the focus should be on meeting them.
Q2 appears to make the assumption that any increase in cost should be met by customers. Why should increased costs not be met by shareholders (e.g. through their dividends)?
No, I do not think that the consumer should be asked to pay more. Some people have little or no income, and demanding that they pay more for their water in order to protect the environment is fundamentally 'regressive'. The government should be paying for environmental improvement through taxation: 'progressively' through income tax, and through business taxes of any company that is impacting negatively on the environment.
Some customers really struggle to pay their water bills, and a small proportion of Affinity Water’s customers are in what is called ‘water poverty’, that is, they spend more than 5% of their disposable income on water bills.
Affinity have some schemes in place already to help these customers. For example, customers on low incomes and/or in receipt of certain benefits are offered lower tariffs which cuts the cost of their bill. They are also offered payment plans to help spread these costs.
These schemes are supported by customers not living in water poverty and on average it adds around £5 to the average customer bill, annually.
1. Were you aware of customers in water poverty being supported in this way? How does this make you feel?
2. Affinity Water could go further and increase the support available so that no-one is paying more than 5% of their disposable income on water bills, but this might cost customers not in water poverty an additional few pounds on their bills.
- How do you feel about this?
- What is the most you would be happy to spend annually in order to support those in water poverty?
Q1. I am aware that water companies have schemes to lessen the impact of water bills on people in water poverty. However, it makes me feel angry to think about a fundamental life-necessity being controlled and charged for by commercial companies. That is why I believe that every person should be entitled to a minimum water allowance for which they are not required to pay.
Q2. I have no income, and am too old to expect ever to earn an income again (although I am too young to receive a pension). Due to disability, my family has lived on life savings and paltry state benefits for some years. We simply do not have disposable income. In this context, spreading the cost of water bills is meaningless. As the water bill-payer, I am not in receipt of any state benefits. As I understand it (maybe incorrectly), the 'lower tariffs' are merely a cap on higher water use, and my household's water use is significantly less than the majority. If Affinity Water does have something meaningful to offer me in terms of a reduction in water charges, then their website information has not made this clear.
I consider it unfair that all water customers are required to pay a levy to support those in water poverty. I believe that adequately supporting people in poverty (Including those people not in employment) should be a government responsibility managed through progressive taxation.
No comments:
Post a Comment