WWT ROUND TABLE 2009
Sponsored by
somebody else’s problem, but that is
starting to go and there is no disagreement
about the problem. The question is, how do
we collectively get the signals?
Working on behaviours is laudable, but
we will not do that without the proper
signals to the industry and the customers,
and you under-achieve. I know the industry
dislikes it and I know that it is sub-optimal,
but we actually praise Ofwat’s voluntary – or
now semi-compulsory – efficiency regimes
for companies, which are starting to make
movement in that direction.
One of the issues about industry working
together on customer campaigns is that
there is no such thing as a customer – not
only within region, but certainly between
regions. We have started to watch for a
potential drought in the North-west – in
Manchester of all places, actually, which
slightly betrays some of the stereotypes.
John is dead right when he says that the
chances of a serious drought in the North-
east are relatively slim while the chances of
a serious drought in the South-east are
relatively unslim. You need therefore to have
some differentiated messaging as well.
Bob Baty There is an issue there with the
dichotomy of the economics of it all.
Historically, there has always been this
difficulty in understanding why you are
providing a product to fund further
investments, while you are encouraging
your customers to use less of it.
Martin Hurst That is the classic problem
with utility regulation, where you have a
difference between short-run and long-run
marginal costs. In the short-run, installing
meters costs money and there is no
question about that because it cannot be
done freely. Therefore, for the average
customer in the very short-term, it will drive Richard Aylard: Companies have a sustainablity assessment process for any decision they take
up bills. In the long-run, however, if you do
not do that, then the cost implications to water efficiency, for example. We have not the points I would agree with. I have a
customers, either of very new infrastructure got it quite right because I think we set the slightly strange impression about this at
and/or of shortages of supply, not to parameters wrong for that exercise in present because I am doing some focus
mention the social implications of large government, and we didn’t allow the wider groups. I actually sat on one on Monday
land-take for new reservoirs everywhere, is environmental and social costs of new where we were talking about people’s
such that the long-run marginal cost benefit supply to be fully taken into consideration. If awareness. There is the classic C1/B London
does stack up. That is actually where our 25- it is just a cost-effectiveness argument, 25 group, talking about this word “sustainability”
year water resource management plans years may be too short. I think we are and the environment, cost and pricing and
come in. starting to get the parameters right and I so on – but, quite frankly, none of them
In the industry, we are trying to take a think Anna Walker’s view is that we will take understood the word “sustainable” at all.
genuinely longer medium-term look and, that further. They had no idea what that meant. They
over that period, you start to have to draw thought the environmental stuff was just the
trade-offs between new reservoirs and Rob Ashley Martin has ticked off many of water industry being greedy monopolists,
just jumping on the bandwagon and trying
“Our proposals are assessed for sustainablity but it
to increase costs. I am paraphrasing to a
certain degree.
would be interesting to know the Ofwat process” When it came to doing their bit, they said
June 2009 Round Table 11
Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24