Golob's energy reform is a textbook example of how energy changes should not be undertaken. It is a set of missed moves that turned from a theoretical "genius idea" into an actual nightmare for users. Here are 10 undeniable fallacies that should raise alarm bells in any energy policy debate. If that's not reason enough to strip Golob of his doctorate, then I really don't know what is. Let's see!
If you are small business owner the owner solar power plants or, god forbid, electric car, then get your tissues ready - Golob's energy reform is coming for you. A reform that should encourage sustainable use of energy, she will instead punish you for being enough stupidly invested in the future. Yes, you read that right. Instead of rewards for the use of renewable resources, boste kaznovani s še višjo omrežnino. In to ne le vi – tudi podjetja.
But wait, that's not all! Car importers, who proudly fill theirs salons with electric vehicles, they should start cleaning up their stocks, because sales will definitely collapse with the new reform. Why would anyone want an electric car if the reform will make it more expensive to charge than to fill up with diesel? Consequences? Multifaceted and especially destructive for the economy.
1. System complexity
Golob replaced the simple system of two tariffs (day and night) with five time blocks, which are changed during the day seven times. This means that the average user can no longer simply control his spending, but must constantly monitor time blocks to avoid higher costs. Think: instead of sitting back and relaxing in the evening, you have to wonder if now is the right time to turn on the washing machine, or if it will result in a higher bill. For each appliance in the house, you will need to know its real consumption. Hair dryer on the highest setting 1 kW. Microwave oven 2 kW ... and so on.
Due to the use of a hair dryer, you may exceed the power consumption and pay a "penalty".
Users they literally became slaves to the timetable electricity. If you are at work during the lower tariff period, when you return home, you will most likely be in the most expensive tariff period. Ironically, the system punishes those who are forced to use energy at irregular times - not through their own fault, but because of work or family obligations.
Reform set high demands for adaptability, but ignored the fact that people are not two-legged calculators that can perfectly adapt their daily lives to changes in the network.
2. Inconsistency with the electricity market price
The logic by which Golob's system should have been designed is upside down. Solar power plants they produce the most energy in the summer, when the price on the stock exchanges is extremely low. We would expect the system to encourage us to use this cheap electricity - but no! It will be at a time when energy from renewable sources is the cheapest the highest network fee.
This means that users who would like to consume cheap energy and reduce their dependence on fossil fuels pay more. Instead of the system being designed to encourage the use of energy when it is available in abundance and at low prices, Golob's reform presents us with a paradox: you are penalized for using energy when it makes the most sense.
3. Lack of real-time control over consumption
Smart meters were designed as a tool that should enable accurate control of electricity consumption. But in practice these counters they work with a one-day delay. This means that you only find out a day later whether you have exceeded the agreed power and thereby accrued additional costs.
Imagine the following situation: Yesterday, you inadvertently turned on several devices at the same time, exceeding the agreed power. Today you get a notification that it will cost you more, a it is already too late for any action. It's like driving a car, where the police give you a speeding ticket the day after the offence. It's impossible to take timely action or understand exactly what you did wrong until the bill hits you. That's about how we'll feel when we see a red number on a bill.
Instead of improving the system and reducing consumption, the system penalizes you for mistakes you could not control. Or they are the exception rather than the rule. No possibility of penalty points.
4. Penalizing a proactive user
Instead of the reform rewarding those who want it proactively reduce your consumption, the system is set up to penalize them. If you wanted to adjust your agreed power now, before surplus billing starts, the reform still penalizes you. So those who will reduce and then exceed the agreed power.
Two-year transition period it doesn't apply to everyone, which means there will be those who want to optimize your consumption and reduce costs penalized at the outset. A reform that punishes people for rational behavior? This is absurd. Instead of encouraging rational consumption, the system rather puts up barriers and punishes those who are ready to act early.
5. Unforeseen events lead to high bills
If your heating system breaks down in winter and you are forced to use electric heaters, you are immediately at a disadvantage. You will easily exceed the agreed strength and thereby trigger a penalty. Instead of the system showing some understanding for unpredictable events, will punish you even more.
This means that you will have to pay in an already stressful situation astronomical calculations. The system does not allow adjustment in special circumstances when the user actually has no control over his consumption. Thus, Golob's system gives you a double blow: first, it punishes you for a situation you had no influence on, and then it raises your costs.
6. Unreliability of billing data
Designed to accurately monitor consumption, smart meters are based on PLC technology, which is common unreliable. This means that the data these meters send to distributors is incomplete or incorrect.
In practice, this means that you can pay bills based on incorrect information without knowing what actually happened. Users have no option accurately check consumption in real time, which means you might be paying for something you didn't even use.
So the reform introduced a technology that doesn't work properly, but still expects us to pay for its mistakes.
7. Solar plant owners pay more
The greatest irony of Golob's reform is that it punishes those who invested in solar power plants. Users who wanted to reduce their dependence on the network and contribute to a sustainable future are now forced to pay higher network fees.
Although they should be rewarded for their sustainable approach, due to increased burdens – e.g. due to the use of heat pumps - or transmission to the grid - these users are forced to pay more.
Instead of the system rewarding environmentally conscious individuals, ironically them punishes. The reform thus discourages people from investing in renewable resources.
8. Skyrocketing costs for industry
Energy-intensive companies face a huge problem. The new network fee will result more than a fourfold increase in costs for many companies. (so many sources write) Instead of Golob's reform encouraging the industry to optimize spending, it rather forces it into a spiral of additional costs that cannot be easily reduced.
Companies that are already achieved optimization, now they no longer have the possibility to adjust their consumption, since the system is designed in such a way that offers no real savings. The overall effect is that industry will be forced to pay more for the same amount of energy.
9. Myopic adjustments - not enough time for industry
The industry faces another obstacle brought by Golob's reform - not enough time to adjust. The first time block in which electricity is the most expensive lasts as much as 11 hours during the day, which makes it impossible to efficiently redistribute consumption, as only a small time window remains where it would be possible to use energy more favorably. This means that energy-intensive companies that need huge amounts of electricity during the day will be faced with exceptional additional costs, with no real possibility of cost reduction.
It's a disaster for businesses. The short-sightedness of the reform means that the industry is given insufficient time to adapt to such a large transition, which can cause serious financial problems and even reduce the competitiveness of companies in the market.
The reform was introduced without considering how companies will be able to successfully manage their spending according to the new time blocks. This is complete nonsense, because companies need stability and the ability to plan costs at least years ahead, which this reform completely destroys. Intensive industries are already fleeing the country and have no "economic" calculation.
10. The reform does not distinguish between different users and those who are already making the "green transition"
The biggest problem of this reform is its general lack of distinction between different users. It doesn't matter if you are the owner of a solar power plant, which he set up with a green future in mind, or you drive electric car, because they promised you credit ratings - you will all be treated equally. The reform does not take into account specific cases such as small entrepreneurs, for example carpenters, who never leased electricity in advance. Are they acting like private shoppers. And what now? Account that was before 300 euros, will jump to 1500 euros. Such cases should be treated separately, since small entrepreneurs do not have the opportunity to influence their energy consumption in the same way as larger companies. It will be difficult for them to build their own energy storage facilities. The reform ignores these differences and tars everything with the same brush, which will lead to serious financial problems for many smaller companies, which are not prepared for such a jump in costs.
Conclusion: Where is the logic?
Golob's energy reform is an exceptional example bureaucratic chaos. Instead of enabling users to use electricity more rationally and sustainably, it actually punishes them for every wrong step. A system that is supposed to be designed to help users and encourage sustainable energy use is instead designed to confuse, frustrate, and force users to pay higher costs - whether due to miscalculations, missing data or simply because they use electricity, when it is most convenient for them.
We must not forget that it was Golob's government has already paid a lot of money, when she advised the economy long-term lease of electricity at prices of around 200 euros per megawatt hour. This strategic mistake is now weighing heavily on companies, who followed this advice. The current market prices of electricity are significantly lower, as a result of which these companies pay up to 200 % more than they would pay if they bought energy at current market prices. This is also why, among other things, industrial production in Slovenia is falling. Certain ones are moving production abroad. Not that we have a 1/3 more expensive labor force. Compared to Croatia, we will also have much more expensive electricity.
If you want to bypass Golob's energy reform, there is one simple trick - become your own electro-operator. Yes, that means investing in own solar panels, energy savers and maybe even some windmill, if the wind allows it, the neighbor will certainly not be happy. Build your own energy independence and reduce your dependence on the national grid, which will otherwise hit you in the pocket. In this way, you can significantly reduce the costs of network fees, which are otherwise expected in the future. In fact, why not just become "your own master" for electricity, if the state intends to punish you so faithfully for sustainable solutions? Things are cheap, but not with our providers! They bill their gateway solutions with a 300% margin.
The irony is that Golob's electro reform actually fights against those, who are already investing in green resources and sustainability, which should be rewarded, not penalized. So, if you don't want the reform to suck the last euro out of your pocket, stand up completely energy self-sufficient.
This reform does not encourage changes in behavior in the way we would expect from energy policy, but rather build a system in which no decision is good enough. Users are faced with a choice: adapt their lives to the chaotic system or put up with rising costs. Golob's reform is not just a mistake - it is a complete failure, which does not serve the interests of users, companies or the environment. I probably would Golob's Ph.D in the light of these "reforms" he really had to undergo a serious revision!
