Yesterday the Government published the new electricity prices for the quarter 1 February – 30 April.
The publication reserves surprises and marks a change of direction compared to what was announced in the latest hearings.
The Energy Minister had announced during the hearing for the update of electricity distribution tariffs in the AMBA that he was moving towards a “gradual but accelerated” subsidy reduction program within a 3-month period by which medium-high families would have lost subsidies starting April 1st.
However, the published resolution proves it Energy prices paid by the middle-income (N3) and low-income (N2) sectors will remain unchanged in the next quarter.
Therefore, an N2 (low-income) residential home will pay just over 6% of the energy consumed and a middle-income home will pay 8%. These coverage levels are worse than in December 2015, and will worsen due to inflation in the coming months.
That is, the families included in the high income bracket (N1: approximately 35% of families) whose bills will double, and the rest of the commercial categories, MSMEs and large customers using vending machines and. It is these increases that could have an effect on inflation in the coming months.
With this new configuration, the Government reaches a general system coverage level of approximately 75%, which for now allows it to remain in line with the expected reduction in subsidies of half a point of GDP for this year.
The important increases would occur among small non-residential users and official organizations, with increases in energy prices of 407% while the big winners of these new prices appear to be the producers, with increases in an important part of their income (factor energy ) by 658%.
This new pricing scheme “leaves room” on AMBA invoices for the distribution and transport increases requested by the companies at the hearingtaking pressure off governors, who with an updated distribution rate should transfer significant increases in energy to medium and low income families in a complicated social and economic framework.
However, it generates a huge distortion which, if not changed, would mean that 2 out of 3 families in the entire country would end up paying ridiculous prices for energy, with a delay that is increasingly difficult to overcome.
This fake tariff could respond to the fear of judicialization, or to the delay in the presentation of the new social tariff system, in both cases it reflects the lack of preventive analysis or the underestimation of this problem.
Source: Clarin
