1. LOCAL GOVERNMENT EXPERIENCE
PUBLIC LIGHTING
LOCAL GOVERNMENT EXPERIENCE
COLIN PITMAN,
DIRECTOR CONTRACT MANAGEMENT
CITY OF SALISBURY
5th February 2002

2. PUBLIC LIGHTING STANDARD SETTING CONTESTABILITY VICTORIAN EXPERIENCE
by Craig Marschall, Managing Consultant
Trans Tasman Tariff & Fuel Consultants

3. STANDARD SETTING PUBLIC LIGHTING STANDARDS:
Over the last few years there have been significant modifications to Public Lighting Standards by a very active “Road Lighting Committee”.
These Standards will be elaborated upon by other speakers

4. Membership consists of representatives from:
Representation: 
Membership consists of representatives from:
-            Uhtna Electronics Pty. Ltd.
-            Phillips Lighting
-            Pierlite Pty.Ltd.
-            GEC Lighting
-            Sylvania Lighting ( 2 reps)
-            Riverton Engineering Co.
-            Australian Local Government Association.
-            Christchurch City Council
-            Energy Australia
-            Powercor Australia
-            Energex
-            ETSA Utilities
-            Gough Manufacturing
-            Willoughby City Council
The Membership is heavily weighted towards industry or supplier representatives.

5. Code Review - Implementation.   
The Code is under constant review, however, the fundamentals of the design process are apparently standardised, leading to luminaire wattage and spacing when applied to existing urban areas, of a much higher standard than currently exists.
  A computer package for design exists which models the Code design process to achieve a design and illumination.
Certification of designers exists, and a number of the members on the Advisory Committee are consultant designers, as are the suppliers.

6. Reciprocity with Overseas Practice:
Whilst Australian conditions of night-time illumination are taken into account in setting intensity and distribution, it would appear that the issue of commonality of Design Practice and breaches of Trade Regulation in terms of the GATT Agreement have influenced some members’ thinking on the chosen lighting standards.

7. The Future:
The future of the lighting design standards must be influenced by the following:
  1.    Customer expectation - “P” Category.
2.    Traffic Safety - “V” Category.
3.    Energy consumption.
4.    Efficiency – i.e., lumens per kilowatt and illumination sustainability.
Some evidence suggests that 60 – 70% of the rated lumens is common, i.e., we pay for 60 – 70% of the nominated consumption. 
5. Membership on the Committee must focus on the customer, rather than the provider of services.
Membership should include greater Local Government representation.

8. CONTESTABILITY
The enquiry by the South Australian Industry Regulator was completed in November 2000.
The enquiry considered all major cost components aside from Transmission and Distribution charges, which are fixed by the Electricity Pricing Order until January 2003
Benchmarking was undertaken with other States, and comparisons in $ per annum are provided below for the most used lights:
  SA Vic NSW Tas Q’ld
LP Sodium 18W
Sodium 100W
Fluoro. 40W NA NA 41
The Regulator’s comments suggest South Australia is in line with other States. We should question this.

9. The Regulator investigated, in addition to lighting charges
1.    Performance benchmarking
2. Service standards
3.     3.    Cost benchmarking
4.    4.    Assets and Rate of Return for ETSA Utilities and AGL
5.        5. Asset life
6.        6. Asset valuation.
7.        7. Opex and Capex
8.        8. Pole charges or Elevation charges.
9.        9. Administration costs.
10.      10.  Retail costs.

10. Total Revenue Requirement – ($’000)
(based on Yr. 2000/2001 in SA)
Cost Category
Amount Proposed
By AGL SA/EU
SAIIR’s
Conclusion
Total retail revenue recovery
Less AGL SA cost recovery of
20,436
3,718
18,420
3,380
Equals total revenue recovered by EU
Less DUOS + TUOS recovery of
16,718
2,670
15,040
Equals total revenue recovery for SLUOS
Less Return on assets
Less Depreciation
Less Operation & Maintenance
- which is comprised of:
Maintenance & Repair
Asset Replacement
Asset Inspection
Fault identification
Tech. Standards & related costs
Administration costs
14,048
3,049
3,964
5,470
4,209
610
378 80 32
160
12,370
4,402
3,850
155
125
Equals elevation charge:
1,566
955