電費加幅可舞高弄低 環境局把關角色可議

<轉載自2017年12月14日 明報 社評>

兩電明年加價，一如所料以市民預先支付的燃料費作為「回扣」，掩蓋基本電費加幅，出乎意料的是港燈加價峰迴路轉，短短數小時內，由提出雙位數加幅，變成「淨電費」只增加1.9%，幅度可以隨時舞高弄低，相當兒戲。兩電生意零風險，年年賺取准許利潤的上限，雙位數加幅實在離譜，市民不可能接受，然而令人驚訝是，環境局未有明確提出反對，好好為市民把關，要由把守最後一關的行政會議出手阻攔，究竟發生何事，惹人關注。政府官員有責任約束兩電，維護巿民利益，如何避免再有類似情况出現，當局必須深切檢討。

港燈提雙位數加幅 環境局未高調反對

兩電電費由基本電費及燃料費組成，基本電費按照利潤管制協議等因素，每年調整，燃料費則由電力公司預測燃料成本，向客戶預先收取，撥入燃料帳之中。近年兩電屢屢高估國際燃料價格走勢，變相濫收燃料費，累積巨額結餘，到了年底提出加價申請，則將每分每毫皆取之於民的燃料費，撥出一部分，包裝成「惠民回扣」，「抵消」基本電費升幅。2013年，港燈承諾凍結「淨電價」5年，然而基本電費卻持續上升，運用的就是這種財技。

兩電明年「淨電價」加幅同為1.9%，看似溫和，然而若不計算燃料費回扣，中電「基本電費」加幅是4%；港燈方面，明年基本電費為每度電109.1仙，亦較2013年港燈向政府提交的5年發展計劃預測，高出了8.8%。政府與兩電有《管制計劃協議》，規定「准許利潤」上限，實際是確保兩電穩賺不賠。「准許利潤」與固定資產掛鈎，兩電只要增建發電機組，「谷大」固定資產價值，就可要求加價。最諷刺是兩電有利潤保障，要在市場舉債，資金成本極低。兩電可以依賴低息借貸融資，增添固定資產，然後提出加價，伸手向市民要錢。

政府要求兩電將天然氣發電比例，在2020年提高至五成，港燈需要增設燃氣機組，為大幅加價提供了最佳口實。按照慣例，兩電年底會提交電費調整方案，經過環境局審批，再交行政會議定斷，然後向立法會交代加幅。據悉今年港燈原本不打算再提供大額回扣，加價幅度達到雙位數，未料行會強烈反對，結果港燈在短短數小時後，提出另一方案，撥出17億元作為燃料費回扣，務求與中電的1.9%「淨電價」加幅看齊。港燈是否早有心理準備，部署「Plan B」預留後路，外界無從得知，惟看在市民眼裏，觀感實在很差，令人質疑港燈相當兒戲，數字任講，龍門任搬，蒙混過關不成才撤回大幅加價要求。

兩電開天索價，政府拒絕放行，並非沒有先例。2011年，兩電分別提出翌年加價9.2%和6.3%，環境局即時提出異議，批評加幅太高，質疑中電將未來項目開支過早入帳「谷數」，至於港燈則應該將政府退還的差餉地租多收款項，悉數回饋客戶，行政長官和行政會議也表態，強調加幅不能接受。港燈率先妥協，中電企圖「硬闖」，惟最終同意將加幅調低至4.9%。

相比之下，今次市民並未看到環境局有做好把關角色，大力反對港燈「雙位數」加價。行會審議兩電加價建議，理應有環境局官員在會上解說，具體情况不得而知，惟事前兩電肯定會用盡一切方法，將加幅包裝得「迫於無奈」、「難以避免」。政府官員的責任，是詳細審視加價是否真的合情合理，不能不加批判，接納一面之辭，對加價申請「有求必應」。

雖然行會阻止了港燈大幅加價，然而未來數年兩電陸續有新資產入帳，電費加價壓力極大，情况殊不樂觀。今年初，政府與兩電簽署新的管制協議，將兩電准許利潤回報率，由目前的9.99%下調至8%，官員聲稱有助紓緩市民電費開支，「假設其他因素不變」，只考慮回報率下調，明年底新協議生效後，電費減幅可以高達5%，云云，說法太過樂觀。利潤管制協議過度向兩電利益傾斜，燃料費悉數要市民預支，安排亦不合理。政府未有好好把握機會，在新管制協議修改相關條款，令人遺憾。

電費加價壓力巨大 講環保更要看民生

電費關乎民生，電力亦非一般商品，若有官員真心覺得，市民可以接受「雙位數」加幅，未免太過「離地」，不知民情。刻下市民最想知道的，是為何環境局未有及早向港燈說不，究竟是主事官員沒有金融底子、不熟悉電力問題，以致事事被兩電牽着走，還是有其他原因或難處。談判桌上，兩電絕非易與之輩，10年前政府改組問責班子，將電力問題由主管經濟事務的政策局，交由環境局處理，本身便是一大錯誤。環保減排僅僅是電力問題的其中一個面向，由環境部門擔大旗，平衡民生考慮或有偏差，讓兩電有機可乘，政府長遠有必要檢討這種分工安排。

Electricity tariff increase prone to manipulation

THE TWO POWER COMPANIES will increase their tariffs next year. As anticipated, they have tried to cover up increases in basic tariffs by offering fuel charge rebates. What is unexpected is HK Electric's tariff-increase U-turn. In only a few hours, it switched from proposing a double-digit tariff increase to asking for only an 1.9 per cent increase in its "net electricity tariff". It seems frivolous to push up or bring down increase percentages readily in this way. The two power companies do zero-risk business. Every year they earn the highest permissible profits. It is impossible for the public to accept double-digit increases. What is astonishing is that the Environment Bureau did not object to such increases unequivocally. It is the Executive Council that has blocked them. What has actually happened? That has aroused concern.

Either power company's tariff is composed of the basic tariff and the fuel charge. The basic tariff is adjusted annually under the Scheme of Control Agreement (SCA) and in the light of some factors. The power company forecasts its fuel cost and requires its customers to pay the fuel charge in advance. In recent years the two companies have often overestimated global fuel price trends. Their customers have been overcharged for fuel. When they apply for tariff increases at the end of the year, they may allocate a portion of what is in their fuel clause accounts (every cent of which comes from the public) and package it as "rebates and rewards to customers" that are supposed to offset the basic tariff increases. In 2013, HK Electric promised to freeze the "net electricity tariff" for 5 years, but its basic tariff has continued to rise. It is this kind of financial shenanigans that the company has resorted to.

Next year both power companies' "net electricity tariffs" will go up 1.9 per cent, which appears moderate. However, if the fuel charge is not taken into account, the increase in CLP Power's basic tariff is 4 per cent. In the case of HK Electric, the basic tariff will be 109.1 cents a unit next year. That is 8.8 per cent higher than predicted in the 5-Year Development Plan HK Electric submitted to the government in 2013.

In the eyes of the public, the Environment Bureau has failed to play its gatekeeping role properly. It has not vigorously objected to HK Electric's double-digit tariff increase proposal. It is the job of government officials to scrutinise meticulously whether tariff increases are fair and reasonable. They must not uncritically accept the power companies' arguments or grant any tariff-increase applications they make.

Early this year, the government signed new SCAs with the two power companies. The permitted rate of return was lowered from 9.99 per cent (the current rate) to 8 per cent. Government officials have asserted the new SCAs would help cut citizens' electricity bills, adding that, when the new agreements are in force late next year, the cost of electricity will fall as much as 5 per cent. This claim is excessively optimistic. The SCAs are slanted towards the two power companies' interests, and it is unfair to require citizens to pay the total fuel cost in advance. It is regrettable that the government failed to have the clauses related to these issues amended in the new SCAs.

What the public is most eager to know now is why the Environment Bureau had failed promptly to say no to Hong Kong Electric. Is it because the officials in charge did not have sufficient financial knowledge or that they were not familiar with power matters? Are there other reasons or difficulties? The government re-formed the team of accountability officials ten years ago. It made a big mistake then when it had the Environment Bureau instead of the policy bureau in charge of economic matters handle power matters. Environment-friendly reduction of emissions is only one of the many aspects of electricity supply. Since the Environment Bureau is in charge of the issue of electricity supply, attempts to balance various considerations that have to do with citizens' lives may be biased. That is a situation which the two power companies may exploit. It is necessary for the government to review such a division of labour in the long term.

電費加幅可舞高弄低 環境局把關角色可議

兩電明年加價，一如所料以燃料費作為「回扣」，掩蓋基本電費加幅，出乎意料的是港燈加價峰迴路轉，短短數小時內，由提出雙位數加幅，變成「淨電費」只增加1.9%，幅度隨時舞高弄低，相當兒戲。兩電生意零風險，年年賺取准許利潤的上限，雙位數加幅市民不可能接受。令人驚訝是，環境局未有明確提出反對，要由行政會議出手阻攔，究竟發生何事，惹人關注。

兩電電費由基本電費及燃料費組成，基本電費按照利潤管制協議等因素，每年調整，燃料費則由電力公司預測燃料成本，向客戶預先收取。近年兩電屢屢高估國際燃料價格走勢，變相濫收燃料費，到了年底提出加價申請，則將每分每毫皆取之於民的燃料費，撥出一部分，包裝成「惠民回扣」，「抵消」基本電費升幅。2013年，港燈承諾凍結「淨電價」5年，然而基本電費卻持續上升，運用的就是這種財技。

兩電明年「淨電價」加幅同為1.9%，看似溫和，然而若不計算燃料費回扣，中電「基本電費」加幅是4%；港燈方面，明年基本電費為每度電109.1仙，亦較2013年港燈向政府提交的5年發展計劃預測，高出了8.8%。

市民並未看到環境局有做好把關角色，大力反對港燈「雙位數」加價。政府官員的責任，是詳細審視加價是否真的合情合理，不能不加批判，接納一面之辭，對加價申請「有求必應」。

今年初，政府與兩電簽署新的管制協議，將兩電准許利潤回報率，由目前的9.99%下調至8%，官員聲稱有助紓緩市民電費開支，明年底新協議生效後，電費減幅可以高達5%，云云，說法太過樂觀。利潤管制協議過度向兩電利益傾斜，燃料費悉數要市民預支，亦不合理。政府未有在新管制協議修改相關條款，令人遺憾。

刻下市民最想知道的，是為何環境局未有及早向港燈說不，究竟是主事官員沒有金融底子、不熟悉電力問題，還是有其他原因或難處。10年前政府改組問責班子，將電力問題由主管經濟事務的政策局，交由環境局處理，本身便是一大錯誤。環保減排僅僅是電力問題的其中一個面向，由環境部門擔大旗，平衡民生考慮或有偏差，讓兩電有機可乘，政府長遠有必要檢討這種分工安排。