Meanwhile, in Hong Kong, the government is considering cutting the annual rate of return the two power companies get.
Haven’t we been there before? The rate of return is based on the amount of capital assets the two companies have and has always been the incentive for them to develop new power plants and related facilities. Cut their rate of return and you give them an incentive to expand their asset base, although this time they may propose to build massive wind farms or something like that instead of more traditional power plants.
Why not let them keep the current rate of return but find other, better ways to power a greener city? Suppose people are given incentives to use renewable energy? The government’s stance has always been that Hong Kong has very limited renewable energy potential, but given the rising cost of electricity, surely small tweaks to the regulatory regime will be enough to spur people into exploring cheaper renewable options? Just imagine cladding all the roofs at the Fairview Park estate in Yuen Long with solar panels. Or having biofuel plants like the one in the Zero Carbon Building, in all buildings. How ’bout putting solar panels on all the noise enclosures on highways? If the stormwater drainage tunnels were equipped with turbines, the recent episodes of black rain and red rain could supply a nice bit of electricity for us as well as divert stormwater from low-lying areas.
Why is it that distributed renewable energy gets such short shrift in Hong Kong?