01-11-2021, 10:51 PM
Wanted to write a post on this but keep forgetting..
I compare this with how Singapore Pools operate.
For any match, if there is too much bet placed on a particular scoreline, SP will transfer the risk to other operators by placing bet on the same scoreline with them.
Now, for the operator, they locked the price with us so that if electricity price drop, they profit from it.. But can't be there is no mechanism (be it by the company or EMA) to force the operator to transfer the risk. If for every 2 years contract signed with a customer, operator transferred the risk by buying oil/gas contract to lock the price, the risk would have been mitigated.
By allowing the operators to exit without any penalty (yes, even if they pay all affected consumer $100 each as early termination charge, I don't think that is too much to ask for), really sucks.. It give a head you win, tail I lose feeling..
Previously, we know CASE is a toothless tiger but at least they still put up an act to do something.. EMA didn't even bother to put up an act, and let the operator default their contractual agreement with consumer without compensating consumer. I don't care if the operators eventually need to pay a fine to EMA (or deposit get forfeited), but I only know affected consumer get nothing, but a higher electricity price when they signed up with another process, and keeping their finger cross that the next provider didn't pull the same stunt.
https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/li...032021_tdy
I compare this with how Singapore Pools operate.
For any match, if there is too much bet placed on a particular scoreline, SP will transfer the risk to other operators by placing bet on the same scoreline with them.
Now, for the operator, they locked the price with us so that if electricity price drop, they profit from it.. But can't be there is no mechanism (be it by the company or EMA) to force the operator to transfer the risk. If for every 2 years contract signed with a customer, operator transferred the risk by buying oil/gas contract to lock the price, the risk would have been mitigated.
By allowing the operators to exit without any penalty (yes, even if they pay all affected consumer $100 each as early termination charge, I don't think that is too much to ask for), really sucks.. It give a head you win, tail I lose feeling..
Previously, we know CASE is a toothless tiger but at least they still put up an act to do something.. EMA didn't even bother to put up an act, and let the operator default their contractual agreement with consumer without compensating consumer. I don't care if the operators eventually need to pay a fine to EMA (or deposit get forfeited), but I only know affected consumer get nothing, but a higher electricity price when they signed up with another process, and keeping their finger cross that the next provider didn't pull the same stunt.
https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/li...032021_tdy