I'm moving house and choosing a new retailer, and just discovered that Powershop is now owned by Shell
So they've lost all their green credibility overnight. From what I can see, the price difference (in SA) now makes it not worth it.
Will this make you think twice about choosing them?
Are you a true ozbargainer and with them because they are the cheapest in your area?
Even using the government comparison tool www.energymadeeasy.gov.au there are now 15 cheaper providers in my area.
Additionally - I always pre-purchased the bulk packs on Powershop to get the best discount, some of these 15 are still cheaper for me (and also carbon neutral) even after accounting for this!
Nobody asked me if I was with them. The question was
Will this make you think twice about choosing them?
The answer to the question is No… couldn't give a shit who owns them… if it works for me, then so be it.
Good point - the question has ambiguous tense as it could mean either: Will you not choose them? or Will you reconsider having chosen them? (I assumed the latter as I was with them before)
"if it works for me, then so be it" The point of ozbargain is to shop around and look for better deals, imagine if the millions of non-thrifty Aussies came on here to tell us that that their current average priced service 'works for them' - they are effectively saying they don't care what it costs and are part of the problem, switching retailers and not being loyal is an important market mechanism to drive prices down.
HAHAHAHA, just watched the video, funny as.
No
Is this acquisition all about carbon offsets?
Eg. Sports car manufacturer produces electric cars to offset their V8 monsters
Yeah, that's how I read it. In a world of carbon trading (whether Australia likes it or not) all polluters will be looking for cheap ways of offsetting their emissions. It's a smart plan.
But it's also about Shell literally buying into a trusted green brand to redeem their own reputation.
Personally I can't stomach the idea of giving them any money.
All energy comes at a price. Would you prefer Shell did nothing?
I would prefer that Shell cleaned up their own act. Buying a green retailer doesn't make them any less of a polluter.
@zzymurgy: Totally right - they are not getting the renewable power generating assets that make Powershop green - they are just buying the retailer part. It's greenwashing in action. Even if you dont care about greenwashing / fossil fuel polution, there are cheaper energy retailers now in most parts of Oz so a true ozbargainer should abandon them too anyway.
can I get 4c off per kwh with a Coles docket?
should be you get 4c off for spending over $30 at Coles, and then every $50 at Shell you get $$ of your Powershop bill
I legit thought this was a prank post. I’ve dealt with some of the people at Powershop, and they will be upset by this.
When they were getting started, they did a deal to cross promote with GetUp! I wonder if that is still going. I can’t imagine they will be very happy.
Lol now GetUp! will have to do a new campaign to shift powershop customers to a new green provider
Businesses (and individuals) can use expenses to offset taxes.
Using a tradable asset like carbon credits to offset carbon emissions is good risk management.
"Will this make you think twice about choosing them?"
I'm already a customer. I may look into other renewable & carbon neutral options and will likely not spruik them to friends and family anymore, but I still think people should choose them over non-renewable and non-carbon neutral options.
Hell, actually, if Shell starts to carbon offset all their customer's energy usage and gets carbon neutral certification for the entire business, I'll probably start spruiking them. It is extremely unlikely, but it would be a great step in the right direction. I care a lot more about the result than the motivation for it.
seems like a gimmick … why pay more for power?
now if they wanted to offset their carbon and built some nuclear power plants, that makes sense and i'd support that because it would help the environment and reduce my power bills
It doesn't make sense. A nuclear power plant would take a minimum of 20 years to get approved and built. By then it would be far too late to help the environment or your power bills.
But it is a useful distraction from big energy to keep themselves relevant and keep some debate about how to phase out polluters. Not good for people, or the earth, but good for big energy.
Unfortunately, a lot of people with poor understanding of the science and the economics repeat uncritically the misinformation being doled out.
I wish nuclear had been better, but it has had 50 years to git gud, and it is still extremely costly and desperately unpopular. Why persist with it when wind, solar and storage is here and cheap? No answer, of course, beyond some silly hand waving about baseload, as if having generation running all night wasn't a problem for decades that the power companies tried to solve with off-peak rates etc.
It's a solution to nothing in Australia.
@mskeggs: Just checking if you are referring to carbon neutral certification or nuclear power. If the latter, I agree fully with your point, it is a distraction and often brought up to dampen discussions about actually doing something useful. Leaving the problems with nuclear to the side (there are a number of them), they would never actually get built due to protests and lobbying anyway.
@tolchok: I don't like nuclear for all the obvious reasons (costly, complex, centralised, unpopular, clean up, possible catastrophic fails, proliferation, despatchability), and doubly so because it is used as a distraction from actually doing renewable energy.
That said, if the fusion break through happened tomorrow I wouldn't dismiss it because it was "nuclear".
Similarly, there are probably some places in the Arctic on the leeward side of a mountain where solar and wind is inadequate. Maybe those handful of weird places might justify fission?
But they would be such edge cases they would be tiny in the scheme of things.
Which part are you indicating is a gimmick and how?
Will this make you think twice about choosing them?
Will they offer me a better deal than I get get elsewhere?
Yes? They'll get my money.
No? Then they won't.
I think most people were with Powershop because they were among the cheapest AND were carbon neutral. Both of those things are now false (or will be very shortly).
So there's no reasons left to stay with them - let us know is they do actually turn out to be the cheapest though.
I'm out, (profanity) Shell, (profanity) Origin, (profanity) RioTinto, etc.
Welcome to the new economy, glad you could join us.
https://www.minds.com/CorbettReport/blog/welcome-to-the-new-…
Tldr?
Some things you have to earn. :)
I prefer mining over earning.
As much as (insert petroleum product company) causes significant pollution they know the writing is on the wall and are starting to invest in renewables. Doesn’t make the good, just means they are slightly less bad.
Shell isn't buying the renewable power generation assets! (Infrastructure Capital Group is getting those) This is greenwashing - Shell just wants the retail side only to use the good reputation to sell fossil fuels (I don't care if it finds some Scomo-Kyoto-style carbon credit carryover deal to make it look carbon neutral). I'm out already - going to Energy Locals because it's better and actually a bit cheaper! win win!!
Call it green washing if you like. I’m under no illusions that they are in it for profit, and only profit.
Well green washing is not always profitable / for profit - it could be a total loss! - they are buying hope that it makes their overall image better which will then maybe boost profits. In this case I suspect they intend to abuse customer loyalty with this provider (and probably many others if they use up faith in this brand) for as long as they can to offload dirty energy.
Amber are offering disgruntled (and disgusted) PS customers a bonus $100 donation to a choice of Green NGO, on top of the usual $30 sign up bonus.
Mod: Edited
No