After reading your report on the presentation from Fortis, I have to point out that for the last 5 years 30% of Fortis users were subsidizing the 70%. The 70% were virtually silent. Yet when the proposal is to go back to a pay for what you use rate, you suddenly say the 70% are now subsidizing the 30% if that weren’t so ridiculous it would almost be funny. Then to rub salt in the wound of the 30% you dub them “over consumers” and you actually want the majority of users to be subsidized for another 5 years albeit at a lesser amount each year?? I don’t believe you have a clear understanding of what has actually gone on for 5 years. With the exception of maybe a few percent of the 30%, those who can least afford to pay have been subsidizing the majority of the Fortis users. I am not advocating subsidizing anyone, just pay for what you use. Further from my point of view in no way does the RDOS believe the fight is over, getting Fortis on side was only 1/2 the battle of going back to a flat rate. The BCUC now needs to be convinced of the unfairness of the two tiered system and the proposed phasing out. Don’t prolong the unfairness, End it!
Regional District Okanagan Similkameen
Area A Director, Osoyoos
Editor’s note: I think you will agree that this is a complex issue and my version of what I heard appears different to yours. I think we can agree that a number of people have paid a lot of extra money on the two tier system because “our government” wanted it that way to provide an incentive to find alternatives. It didn’t work.
The argument has been made and the system seems willing to swing back to the “one unit rate” system that will cost most more. I guess you are right the top consumers were subsidizing the ones which had choices – but once again “our government” wanted it that way – not the fault of the power consumers.
I agree that a phased in system for the change is not as good as just reversing the concept and the sooner the BCUC does that – the better. You and I should probably have a coffee soon to hash this out again – but rates, fees, percentages really do not make it any easier by me or the reader to understand. I did not say I agreed with the phased in approach it was the Fortis BC position. The over consumption remark, the comments about substandard housing construction were made in the presentation or stated words of directors. Based on what I heard the RDOS will not seek intervener status so my interpretation is that it seems to be backing away from Rick Knodel’s endorsed motion in October. To support in a limited way Mr. Marty is really not a ringing endorsement of anything.