One bright idea on charging for electricity usage
Straits Times Forum 18 Feb 09;
I REFER to "Let there be light, bright ideas for the city" in Saturday's Life! section, on the trend of integrating lights into architectural design.
The article mentioned that the glittery facades in architectural design were in line with the Urban Redevelopment Authority's (URA) Lighting Masterplan.
I find that the masterplan contradicts the Government's aim to conserve electricity.
The article mentioned that developers and architects used light-emitting diodes on building facades, which consume less power than conventional fluorescent lights. However, brightening up entire facades still involves large amounts of electricity consumption.
Singapore may be nowhere near the brash neon lights of Hong Kong and Japan, or Paris. However, the URA, developers and architects ought to bear in mind that electricity tariffs here are generally very much higher than these countries.
Whenever the Government announces that electricity usage has gone up, I believe that it has taken into account usage by commercial and public buildings, as well as private dwellings. Ultimately, electricity charges will increase and apply across the board to all.
Developers would not feel the pinch from the increase of electricity tariffs as the cost would have been factored into the construction costs, and it would also be included in the tenancy or sale of the units.
Ultimately, home owners are the ones that would be badly affected whenever electricity tariffs increase.
To be fair to home owners, I would like to suggest to the Government to implement two different charges: One for commercial/public buildings, as these account for the bulk of electricity consumption, and the other for home owners.
Michael Yeo
