Minister Lekstrom reply concerning Hydro's Step 1 Threshold

In a December 22 posting, British Columbia's hydro authority was chastized for the virtually impossible-to-meet Step 1 "conservation" parameters (Step 2 kicks in at approx. 1350 kwh).   My residential electrical bill was the test.  Why?  Two reasons:  no natural gas is available in this area and, most importantly, my residence uses wood heat exclusively.  Electric heaters are never activated in the residence.  Yet recent hydro bills showed Step 1 had been exceeded.

We are only two adults in the residence.
Imagine the impact on a family of, say, four who have neither natural gas nor wood heat.

So I sent a letter to the Premier of B.C. to hopefully convince officials that the Step 1 threshold was too low.
Not for me...my hydro bills are relatively low because of the wood heat, but for families all over British Columbia who also have no natural gas in their area.  And no wood for heating.

Blair Lekstrom, minister of energy, mines and petroleum resources replied thus:
...In your email, you express concern that B.C. Hydro's Residential Inclining Block (RIB) two-step conservation rate is unfair to ratepayers who cannot lower their electricity consumption by switching to other energy sources.  The RIB rate was intended to encourage electricity conservation rather than fuel switching.  More information on the RIB rate.  

B.C. Hydro made an application to the British Columbia Utilities Commission (BCUC) for their proposed RIB rate.  In response, the BCUC initiated an extensive review with public hearings that took place during the summer of 2008.  Many public interest groups registered as interveners and represented ratepayer interests.  A higher Step 1 threshold and concerns about bill impacts for residencees with electric heating were discussed.  The BCUC considered all parties' arguments and the public interest, ordered revisions to the RIB rate, and instructed B.C. Hydro to put the BCUC revised RIB rate structure into effect.  The BCUC's "Reasons for Decision" document detail the RIB rate application.   (Coldstream Corner note:  It's 157 pages long!)

The reply continues:
B.C. Hydro's electricity rates remain the lowest in North America.  In June 2009, B.C. Hydro filed a report to the BCUC summarizing the results of a North American survey of electricity prices.  The survey, conducted by Hydro Quebec and covering over 20 utilities across Canada and the United States, found that B.C. Hydro had the lowest rates for residential customers consuming 750 kilowatt hours or less per month and the third-lowest rates for residential customers consuming 1,000 to 3,000 kilowatt hours per month.
 
One way to lower your electricity bill is through investments in energy efficiency.  (Coldstream Corner note:  now would be a good time to tell them we installed a 10 kilowatt wind turbine last year!)  British Columbia's 2010 budget includes $35 million in new funding over three years for the "LiveSmart BC: Efficiency Incentive Program".  The Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources is currently working with its utility partners to finalize the structure of the new Program.  Details on the Program are expected to be announced in the coming weeks, and will be posted on the LiveSmart BC website.   (Coldstream Corner note:  would now be a good time to tell them that my 10 kilowatt wind turbine was INELIGIBLE for their program last year?  seems the program only went to a maximum 3 kilowatt turbine, yet the website omitted that).
You may also find lowcost actions to reduce your energy consumption and electricity bill through B.C. Hydro's Power Smart program.   (Coldstream Corner note:  oh yes, the B.C. Hydro "program" that charged me $600.00 for a 10-minute inspection of the wind turbine components prior to start-up). 
I trust this information addresses your concerns.  Thank you for writing.  Sincerely, etc.


Coldstream Corner's contention:
The Step 2 rate is not intended to--as Minister Lekstrom says--"encourage electricity conservation".  Proof of that is B.C. Hydro's Fiscal 2011 revenue requirement application.  They need "x-dollars" from utility consumers.  More like reverse accounting!

And on page 65 of that 157 page document, "BC Hydro stated that it has conducted research into the default residential rate designs offered by 88 different utilities throughout North America, Europe and Asia"...  Europe and Asia???  Minister Lekstrom appears to think it was: "results of a North American survey of electricity prices".  

Also from the same page:  "Tariff sheets were entered in evidence from California..."  California???  That bastion of environment-first,and-to-hell-with-everything-else?  Yet, to California's credit, they have implemented a program that recognizes: 'an “All Electric” baseline allowance available upon application to those customers who have permanently installed electric space heating, or who have electric water heating and receive no energy from another source'.  California recognizes that!  Did Minister Lekstrom realize B.C. Hydro created a disparity when it did not implement a baseline "all electric" allowance?   

Rather than go on ad nauseum, picking apart the documents item by item, it seems that this creative--and reverse--accounting system has spread to Coldstream Council.  They also have a revenue requirement when considering property taxes.  And those are going up 5.59%.

"People should grow a warm coat like I did," suggests Kia.

Or impenetrable skin, like officials in both Coldstream and Victoria.

Additional information re Hydro's "conservation" rate changes are here.