EDF increased 20% of electricity tariffs in three years

[Did67]

I just don't understand EdF's "strategy" ... how do you see it? 20% today is to increase by 50% the next time?

I do not understand everything. I'm trying to "decode"!

1) Today, in a difficult political context, ask 20 15% for ...

2) But if the CEO goes to coal today (in an unfavorable political context - "the crisis"), it is because he saw clouds on the horizon, for his company, which is, I recall, a SA listed on the stock exchange ... So if he is a good CEO, he anticipates ("managing is planning"). And if he claims 20% in a difficult context, it is because he needs 15% (which he hopes to obtain) immediately. So as soon as things get better, the price catching up will continue. I continue to bet on a doubling at the 10-year maturity ...

[Christophe]

Bullshit? Well no I would rather the opposite!

But in fact, it was both right this is just a point of view of history! Lately we were somewhat disagree including subsidizing I find absusif PV ...

[Christine]

So from a capitalistic point of view, very good tactics of the CEO of EdF.

I do not agree with that statement, for the reasons that you give yourself afterwards:

I also think that EdF does not "provision" sufficiently the costs of "dementing" power plants (provisioning, in economics, is putting money aside for predictable expenses, which "hang in the face" ... while knowing that we will not be able to spayer it all at once when they arise). And I think the CEO is starting to get the hang of it, hence his crusade to raise prices. At the end, EdF being an SA, there may be bankruptcy (see ENRON in California) !!!

Everyone is impressed by the turnover of EdF. Which is a very indebted company !!! Despite its bénéfs !!! It would be a small corner, I'm not sure she would not be liquidated !!!

In any case, put a heavy blow to its clients becaufe the pétoches its management weaknesses appear and have unfortunate consequences (predictable!), I would not called it a good tactic.
And that the CEO is possible to come to lecture to its clients and the public (because the state is still widely present!) While the situation is the consequence of their megalomania, I say that this is really a behavior take a dump !

There are plenty of good reasons for the price of edf increases, but they allow themselves to take for idiots, no!

[jlt22]

This is to compensate for the purchase of photovoltaic electricity to all individuals who install PV on their roof with interest loan

The redemption and other voltaic electricity is paid by all electricity consumers.
On your bill the line is entitled: Contribution to the public utility of electricity.
EDF does not pay a penny.

[jlt22]

Obviously it does not please anyone, me first.
If one wants to reduce greenhouse gases and prepare for the end of fossil fuels which is close, there is a solution, consume less.
A massive increase in the energies affect the consumer portfolio and have a positive effect.
This increase should not inflate business profits, but be redistributed to improve energy savings in housing (especially the smaller ones), to save on public transport and to organize them more efficiently.
The expensive energy will give a brake on globalization and we shall relocate businesses in their home countries.
Consumers will return to the habit of consuming locally when the cost of energy will make freight transport less profitable.

[boubka]

Stictly no relation to ecology.
just a story of money, when you want rachetter half of electricity production from europe on s in debt and we must do Racker's clients and EDF is still public taxpayers.
we must also accustom them to pay the price for the future total privatization.
our parents we already pay for energetics independence of France with all the disadvantages (the France is the most nuclear-pay the world) and 30 years later we are given rather cover
find the error

we spend in 15 years a high-performance company has a company in difficulty ... but where are past the huge beneffices of EDF?

[Ahmed]

I think the approach of Bubka, resolutely commercial, is interesting.

You may have noticed that for a while EDF was the apostle of electricity savings and the champion of the CAP: it shows, in my view, a shift from producer status to the merchant.

EDF's interest is no longer to produce and sell the maximum amount of KW, as in the days of "all-electric" heating, but to sell them as expensive as possible.

More consumers will be equipped with energy-sober devices, this strategy will further deploy effectively.

[Did67]

I do not agree with that statement, for the reasons that you give yourself afterwards:

Yes I understand.

Just one caveat: the current CEO is not the one that started the nuclear program! EdF has long been a public company. The capitalistic logic did not outweigh ...

It has been privatized for a relatively short time, but the state still has its hands (regulated tariff) ...

The current CEO is trying to "get out" of what is for him a straitjacket, to prepare the company for competition and to face financial tensions ...

That's a sign that position. And this is what I try to raise this thread. We just entered the capital age of electricity. This is a major turning point in energy policy in the country (I speak for France). I did not feel much noticing! Go to 10 years!

So he plays a game of poker.

Playing poker is always cheat a little ..

Well, that said, do not believe I have any indulgence for EdF.

In all the wires on the PAC, on this forum and on others, I am one of the most constant in pleading for alternatives to nuclear "even at a slight loss" (even if it costs a little more for the customer than I am - hence also my divergence with Christophe on the PV).

I just wanted to react here against arguments evoked by some tending to present this game of poker as "stupidity" of EdF (or its CEO). And there, I explain that not. Suddenly, I would appear almost like a pimp of EdF! A shame ...

I may be the ability to recognize the merits, or at least consistency, also at my opponents. This is not because someone is a strictly otherwise the best he's stupid. A philosophy ... Is not Christopher? (Relative to PV - I never insulted you?).

[Did67]

For the contribution, it must be a few tenths of cents € per kWh if ... kk1 a detail?

Someone his bill under the eyes. Alsace (Electricité de Strasbourg - same as EdF)

Subscription blue kVA 6 - 2 months: 9,08 HT
256 kWh = 0,0803 20,56 HT HT
HT = 0,95 departmental tax (on 80% of consumption)
Municipal tax = 1,90 HT (on the same 80%)
CSPE = 1,15 HT (on the totality of consumption: 0,0045 € / kWh)
VAT reduced: 0,55 €
VAT: € 4,64

Total 38,83 €

CSPE, which is what we speak here = Contribution to the expenses of public electricity service; This fund is managed by the Caisse des Dépôts et Consignations; it funds, as the name suggests, the charges imposed on the operator (connection of isolated hamlets additional cost of photovoltaic or wind power, etc) ... I do not know if the details are public.

The CEO talked about the tariff (so 0,0803 € HT / kWh). That's what makes him his margin.

Incidentally, after the TIPP, I just found a second tax that also bears VAT, it is this CSPE. Note the subtlety: it's a charge, not a tax ... So legally, I'm wrong. But the reality is this one, a tax is taxed ...

[Did67]

when we want rachetter half the electricity production of europe on s in debt and we must do racker customers

and as EDF is still public taxpayers. They should also be used to pay the price for future full privatization.

we spend in 15 years a high-performance company has a company in difficulty ... but where are past the huge beneffices of EDF?

point 1: yes! I wrote above that this "exit" of the CEO signed the entry of EdF in a capitalistic logic; that this was by no means a mistake; and if I were a big conosmmateur, I would be worried! So, in my opinion, this will help to clarify the dementia on CAPs !!!

point 2: yes and no; it has become an SA, whose main shareholder is the State; so, yes, a nationalized company. But from which the State intends to draw dividends, and not to put public money - taxes (which Brussels would reject in the name of the distortion of competition - the market is open, even if the other distributors remain ultra-minority). For my part, the episode we are witnessing signals the shift from a "public service" logic to a "capitalistic logic" ...

The customer will pay well!

point 3: oh, there are many places where its benefs went; the state, in the past, has punctured; there are the extremely favorable schemes for employees ("vested benefits" and other pensions maintained for the former - this is slowly changing); and let's not be intellectually dishonest: French industrialists in the first place and consumers have benefited from lower prices than elsewhere in Europe (hence the diarrhea of ​​PACs in our country while in other countries have built passive houses. ..) - see on this subject the comparative price chart put by Christophe. This is what the CEO is now fighting against ...