BCUC -- So Much For "Public Opinion"

Their "call for comments" produced such a spiralled web of crapola that it's difficult to even wade through their website listings on the issue of electricity rate tiers in British Columbia.

Good ole' Wacky Bennett must be rolling over in his grave right about now.
But he's the only one who'd have time to read it all...

My November 23, 2016 blog post on the issue is here.
We all know hydro's electricity rates have been going up and up and up for years; have a look at their 2012 document on conservation.

My November blog post had ended with the phrase:  "Good...now let's see if BCUC will come up with an analytical and thoughtful reply to their request for comments from the public."

Anyone suffering from insomnia can cure themselves by wading through the following BCUC stuff that was sent to me today in response to my "Public Comment letter".

To cut to the chase, B.C. Hydro's (through their arms-length approval function, the B.C. Utilities Commission), still hasn't seen the public outrage that since  no “baseline all electric” was determined, which would have led to higher average monthly electrical usage and a resulting higher Tier 1 level before Tier 2 rates “kicked in”, this public submission process led to exactly what the BCUC and B.C. Hydro and the current B.C. government wanted:  public input that could then be ignored, and business would go on as usual.

Anyway, here's the email I just received:

"The BCUC has issued its independent report requested by the BC Government in response to public concerns raised about BC Hydro and FortisBC’s residential inclining block (RIB) rates. As you provided a letter of comment that was considered as a part of this report, we have enclosed a pdf link to the Report.

http://www.bcuc.com/Documents/Proceedings/2017/DOC_49001_03-28-2017_BCUC-RIB-Rate-Report.pdf

To see all documents submitted as a part of this process, please see the following link: BCUC RIB Rate Report 

Thank you for participating in this process.

Regulatory Services

British Columbia Utilities Commission

Sixth Floor, 900 Howe Street, Vancouver, BC   V6Z 2N3

Tel:  604-660-4700 | Email:  commission.secretary@bcuc.com"

The 32-page Exhibit List is here.
My submission shows up on page 30, numbered E-567.

Still haven't cured your insomnia?
Well, the following will do it:  have a peek at the 2,139-page (yessiree Bob!), the 2,139 page 2015 Rate Design Application.

Doing a Ctrl-Find search of the word "baseline" leads to these statements:

• On page 6
  -28, BC Hydro says
  : “.... AMPC stated that the inability to annually adjust baselines to reflect
  changes in use is a significant problem for a heterogeneous class, and thus a flat energy rate may be more useful in providing a conservation price signal than a tiered energy rate.”

• The mechanism of LGS rate structure include a provision for new accounts where the last 15 percent of energy consumed in a monthly billing period will be charged at the Part 2 energy rate rather than at the Part 1 energy rate until a baseline level of consumption is established one year hence.

• LGS Flat Energy Rate
  - A LGS flat energy rate eliminates all complexity-related issues resulting from the baseline component of the SQ LGS Energy Rate and aligns with how other similarly situated Canadian electric utilities structure larger general service energy rates (predominantly flat). However, there is a trade
  -off between the customer understanding and acceptance and the economic efficiency criteria because the flat energy rate would not be reflective of LRMC (F2017: LGS flat energy rate is 5.37cents/kWh with demand charge cost recovery at 65 per cent, and the lower end of the energy LRMC range is 9.46 cents/kWh)
•  
•   “Initially, freshet energy volumes will be calculated hourly by determining
  energy consumption in excess of an average MW (aMW) baseline determined in consultation with the participating customer.”
  BC Hydro sought feedback on four baseline options on slide 27 of the Workshop 10 presentation and ultimately received broad stakeholder support for pursuing Option 3,an average MW baseline discussed on page 34 of the Workshop 10 consideration memo, giving customers the ability to respond to daily HLH and LLH price signals.Options 1 and 2 were rejected because they used average freshet prices, across an entire month or season, and would have sent customers an inferior price signal relative
  to the use of an average MW baseline in Option 3.

From page 65: 

Were there any issues with setting baselines, implementation and billing?

Frankly...I quit after page 65 of 2,139.
Just couldn't pause my life for however long it would take to get through this one link!

So here's their pertinent comment: 

"B.C. Hydro's conclusion, which is also supported by COPE 378 and BCESA, is that the Customer Specific Baseline Rate is impractical due to the large number of customers, and will impose significant implementation challenges."

What does that mean?

"It means they're too lazy to canvass B.C. customers (easy-peasy...it IS the computer age)," Kia would've said, "to accurately get a customer specific baseline", instead of guessing at it."



So, what's MY summary now?

• Get ready for time-of-use (ToU) energy billing in British Columbia (as in Ontario, for most of their customers).

• Get ready for continued single-digit (~5? ~6 per cent) increases...year after year after year.

...oh, and just wait until Greater Vernon Water figures out how to charge for time-of-use water consumption *grin*.

Try telling that to B.C. Hydro and the B.C. Utilities Commission!

Hydro Vying for Gouger of the Year with GVW

...and then raises the gouging ante.

Anything to do with a bureaucracy seems to be going absolutely mad with their charges to customers.

Just noticed the residential hydro bill crept -- albeit by only 76 kWh -- into the Step 2 rate for the period October 22nd through December 18th, 2015. 

Step 1 was 1,287 kWh, charged at $.07970...8 cents / kWh.

Step 2 is charged at $.11950...12 cents / kWh.

"W.A.C. Bennett just turned over in his grave," offers Kia.

Ringing in my ears is WAC's comment "owned by the residents of British Columbia".

Oh...and a pantload of thanks to Coldstream Municipality's leaders over the years with all their fooh-faah Official Community Plans, none of which were worth the powder to blow to hell.
Why? 
Because their interference with natural growth patterns stymied increases to Buchanan Road's density.

Did officials know their actions would equate to no natural gas being available here? 
In 40 years?
Nope.
 
 

"American Greed" and the Enron Story

Last night's CNBC show, "American Greed", detailed the unravelling of Enron. 

Enron's obvious (but to me, puzzling) hatred for anything California got me thinking back to when California owed B.C. Hydro money for electricity. 

I didn't know anything about Enron back in 1985.  Apart from its very public collapse in 2001, I was frankly amazed at the sheer depth of fraud and corruption--orchestrated by its principals--brought to light since then. Fortunately, my family didn't own Enron stock.  But you can bet YOUR bank did!

Take the quiz and see what you knew.
Very little, I bet, just like me.
Proof of duplicity in lurid and fraudulent corporate machinations even led to the dissolution of the previously highly-respected accounting firm of Arthur Andersen.

Wikipedia sums it all up, if not nicely.

The TV show reminded me that I had been interested in whether California had ever repaid B.C. Hydro, especially since B.C. residents were facing a 7.23 increase in rates, the first of many.

At the time, it was reported in the media that up to $400 million was owed.
So I questioned B.C. Hydro.

The following is the reply I received from B.C. Hydro rep Elisha Moreno, dated March 18th, 2004:

"Thanks for writing to us about where this proceeding is at - Powerex is still owed approximately US$280 million by the California Independent System Operator (CAISO) and the California Power Exchange (CalPX). However, at the same time, FERC has ordered an across-the-board recalculation of California market prices for the period of October 2, 2000 to June 19, 2001. This recalculation will result in refunds to California by some market participants, including Powerex. Any refunds ordered are not in relation to any alleged market manipulation, but in recognition of the fact that the California market was "broken", resulting in extremely high power costs for California during the state's energy crisis.

The exact amount of refunds Powerex will be ordered to pay is currently unknown. At FERC's direction, the CAISO is now recalculating prices, which in turn will determine the amounts owed to and by each market participant based on a certain pricing methodology. These amounts are expected to be issued by the CAISO in the next 6 months, with refunds being offset against outstanding receivables.

Regardless of the amount Powerex has to refund, there will be no negative impact on BC Hydro's bottom line. We have already accounted for the vast majority of the money that's owed us, so any money we get back is a positive for our bottom line. It is also important to remember that we generated significant revenues from energy sales during the energy crisis, therefore this outstanding amount is unrelated to the coming rate increase.

I'd like to remind you that we have not had a rate increase in more than 10 years, since 1993. The reason we are seeking a rate increase is two fold, the need for energy is growing and new sources of electricity will cost more than our existing Hydro resources, and our infrastructure to make sure that energy is reliably delivered to you, is aging and in need of upgrades or replacement. As BC Hydro has absorbed all the costs incurred since 1993, in order to assure secure reliable power into the future we do need the rate increase.

An interim increase has been granted us by the Utilities Commission for April 1, 2004. However this is not the firm rate increase, as there will be a public hearing starting May 17 by the BC Utilities Commission for the public to come and voice their concerns and I would encourage you to do so.

They will make a final decision in the fall this year as to what the increase should be and if it is less than the interim rate customers will be refunded with interest on their bills.

I hope this answers your question somewhat, thank you again for writing."    Elisha Moreno Elisha.Moreno@bchydro.bc.ca

"Seems rear vision is clear vision, 20/20," offers Kia.

 Wonder what we'll discover in another nine years...  

One thing I'm certain of:  W.A.C. Bennett would be turning over in his grave if he knew.

FEB. 22/13 UPDATE:  Lawsuit:  California vs. B.C. Hydro 

AUG.17/13 UPDATE:  Powerex "settles" for $750 million payment to California

"Proof that U.S. lawyers are better than Canadian lawyers," sniffs Kia.

Lawsuit against B.C. Hydro? Co-defendant B.C. Utilities Commission?

Is a group action lawsuit the only way to get their attention?...

Probably.

It's time to get serious.

Last October's implementation of the electric utility Step 2 Conservation Rate had onerous implications for folks in predominantly rural areas.

Why? Because natural gas isn't available in their area--or on their street.
Deregulation in other industries such as telecommunications has led to choice for consumers. Not so with customers of B.C. Hydro who have no access to natural gas!

It's impossible for this writer to ascertain just how many British Columbians have no access to gas but since the massive switch by consumers to natural gas over the last 20 years, we are undoubtedly in the minority.

Using my residence as an example--where natural gas is available both east and west of my location (but not at the roadfront)--Step 1 is billed at just shy of 6 cents per kilowatt hour to a maximum of approximately 1,376 kilowatt hours monthly. Usage beyond that is charged at one-third more...at .0827 cents.

This abuse of B.C. Hydro's monopoly, sanctioned by the B.C. Utilities Commission via their approval of rates, is tantamount to an abuse of authority. Not noble efforts to stem the impact on climate change!

You'll ask "have you contacted hydro and the utilities commission to resolve the issue?" Representatives either don't have the authority to even pass along a concern--or don't know to whom it should be passed to--or feel it remains a fair system in their opinion.

The little guy has never felt smaller than when wondering how to convince the big guys of such a travesty of procedural fairness and justice.

My contention is that Step 2 is an erroneously applied penalty rate because customers who have no access to natural gas cannot possibly keep electrical usage within the narrow confines of Step 1.

Now to find somebody to run the gauntlet...