Tariffs
What we asked...
Is the balance of Icon Water’s water charges considered to be appropriate?
What you told us...
When the current tariff structure was explored across the different audiences, there was reasonable support expressed for Icon Water’s two-tier usage charge model and most considered the charges to be about right.
The two-tier charging model was seen as a way to encourage water saving. Large non-residential water user participants (for which fixed charges proportionally make up much less of their water costs) considered the current structure to be less fair. This view was reflected in key customer interviews, with the majority feeling the current structure does not cater adequately for large water users and does not incentivise water conservation efforts.
Participants in the deliberative deep-dive process and the Customer Advocacy Forum were shown three tariff structure options for the 2023-28 period:
- Option A the current price path ($20 annual supply charge increase),
- Option B a middle road price path (that changes the annual supply charge increase to $10), or
- Option C a price path option with a higher usage charge (and a lesser increase in annual supply charge increase to $6).
Personas were used to assist discussions:
Participants were asked for their preference.
Opinions were mixed as to a tariff structure that is the most acceptable. A $6 annual supply charge increase was more supported by residential customers, equating to a similar % increase in charges for all and minimising the financial burden on vulnerable customers. However, larger households and businesses were more supportive of a higher annual supply charge increase in order to minimise their usage charges.
Discussion among forum members expressed mixed views, with members understanding the positive and negative impacts of each option. Equity across customers groups was a priority for the forum, noting different water needs and water saving abilities should be considered.
What we asked...
How open are people to a non-residential water tariff?
What you told us...
There was unprompted discussion in some forums about the need for a different tariff structure for large water users who use water to provide essential community activities.
When participants were asked specifically about this concept, there was support in principle for a non-residential tariff for not-for-profit organisations, however not for commercial organisations.
Members of the Customer Advocacy Forum that run large sporting grounds or golf clubs noted they do not have the ability to greatly reduce their water consumption. The concept of a non-residential tariff was supported by this forum for its potential to reduce costs, and reward or support those organisations that provide community value.