Open Collections

UBC Graduate Research

The Implications of Energy Conservation Pricing for Low-Income Households Owen, Jason Sep 30, 2010

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
310-SCARP_2010_gradproject_Owen.pdf [ 903.75kB ]
Metadata
JSON: 310-1.0102521.json
JSON-LD: 310-1.0102521-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 310-1.0102521-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 310-1.0102521-rdf.json
Turtle: 310-1.0102521-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 310-1.0102521-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 310-1.0102521-source.json
Full Text
310-1.0102521-fulltext.txt
Citation
310-1.0102521.ris

Full Text

	
   	
   	
   	
   	
   	
   	
   	
   	
   	
   	
   	
   	
   The	
  Implications	
  of	
  Energy	
  Conservation	
  Pricing	
  	
   for	
  Low-­Income	
  Households	
   	
   	
   	
   	
   	
   	
   	
   	
   	
   	
   	
   	
   	
   	
   	
   	
   	
   	
   Jason	
  Owen	
   September	
  14,	
  2010	
    THE IMPLICATIONS OF ENERGY CONSERVATION PRICING FOR LOWINCOME HOUSEHOLDS by JASON OWEN M.Sc., The University of British Columbia, 2010 A PROJECT SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF Science (PLANNING) in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES School of Community and Regional Planning We accept this project as conforming to the required standard ...................................................... ..................................................... .....................................................  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA September 2010 © Jason Owen, 2010  	
   ABSTRACT	
    	
   Energy	
   conservation	
   pricing	
   has	
   been	
   implemented	
   as	
   a	
   method	
   of	
   meeting	
   the	
   demands	
   of	
   growing	
   electricity	
   consumption	
   through	
   conservation	
   and	
   changes	
   in	
   demand	
  patterns.	
  	
  RIB	
  and	
  TOU	
  rates,	
  two	
  such	
  pricing	
  regimes,	
  have	
  the	
  potential	
   to	
  subject	
  low-­‐income	
  customers	
  to	
  a	
  disproportionate	
  energy	
  burden.	
   	
   Energy	
   poverty	
   is	
   often	
   described	
   as	
   conditions	
   in	
   which	
   the	
   costs	
   of	
   energy	
   is	
   such	
   that	
  certain	
  households	
  struggle	
  to	
  pay	
  for	
  other	
  essential	
  items,	
  such	
  as	
  rent,	
  food	
   and	
  clothing	
  in	
  order	
  to	
  pay	
  their	
  energy	
  bill.	
  This	
  problem	
  is	
  amplified	
  by	
  the	
  fact	
   that	
   low	
   income	
   households,	
   which	
   are	
   at	
   the	
   greatest	
   risk	
   of	
   facing	
   a	
   disproportionate	
   energy	
   burden,	
   are	
   most	
   often	
   the	
   least	
   able	
   to	
   alter	
   their	
   use	
   of	
   energy	
  or	
  pay	
  for	
  energy	
  efficiency	
  improvements.	
   	
   Based	
   on	
   BC	
   Hydro’s	
   bill	
   impact	
   analysis	
   and	
   further	
   analysis	
   done	
   for	
   this	
   paper,	
   the	
   RIB	
   rate	
   likely	
   does	
   not	
   have	
   a	
   disproportionately	
   adverse	
   impact	
   on	
   the	
   average	
   low-­‐income	
   customer.	
   	
   There	
   is,	
   however,	
   in	
   all	
   likelihood	
   a	
   certain	
   portion	
   of	
   customers	
   who	
   consume	
   more	
   than	
   the	
   average	
   amount	
   of	
   electricity	
   for	
   their	
   income	
  group	
  and	
  are	
  in	
  energy	
  poverty	
  or	
  at	
  risk	
  of	
  becoming	
  so.	
   	
   Unlike	
  the	
  RIB	
  rate,	
  where	
  customers	
  who	
  consume	
  less	
  electricity	
  experience	
  fewer	
   negative	
   impacts,	
   TOU	
   pricing	
   requires	
   substantial	
   change	
   to	
   use	
   patterns	
   and	
   enabling	
   technology	
   in	
   order	
   for	
   the	
   customer	
   to	
   benefit.	
   	
   The	
   burden	
   of	
   capital	
   expenditures	
   required	
   to	
   implement	
   TOU,	
   equally	
   distributed	
   among	
   residential	
   customers,	
   is	
   less	
   likely	
   to	
   be	
   offset	
   by	
   conservation	
   potential	
   and	
   off-­‐peak	
   energy	
   consumption	
  for	
  the	
  low-­‐income	
  customer	
  base.	
   	
   Energy	
   efficiency	
   programs,	
   which	
   often	
   provide	
   assistance	
   to	
   homeowners	
   to	
   install	
  energy	
  efficient	
  retrofits,	
  require	
  that	
  the	
  participant	
  pay	
  for	
  at	
  least	
  a	
  portion	
   of	
   the	
   costs	
   and	
   are	
   generally	
   funded	
   through	
   energy	
   rate	
   increases.	
   	
   Customers	
    already	
   faced	
   with	
   a	
   disproportionate	
   energy	
   burden	
   cannot	
   likely	
   afford	
   to	
   participate.	
   	
   Considering	
  the	
  conservation	
  potential	
  in	
  the	
  residential	
  sector	
  identified	
  in	
  the	
  CPR	
   study	
  and	
  the	
  prevalence	
  of	
  energy	
  poverty	
  in	
  this	
  province,	
  there	
  is	
  clear	
  potential	
   for	
   electricity	
   conservation	
   through	
   household	
   energy	
   efficiency	
   improvements	
   targeted	
  at	
  low-­‐income	
  customers.	
    Jason	
  Owen	
  	
    	
    September	
  14,	
  2010	
    	
   Table	
  of	
  Contents	
   1.0	
   Introduction ................................................................................................................... 3	
   2.0	
   Background..................................................................................................................... 4	
   2.1	
   The	
  Climate	
  Justice	
  Project................................................................................................. 4	
   2.2	
   BC	
  Energy	
  Context ................................................................................................................. 4	
   2.3	
   Energy	
  Poverty	
  in	
  BC ............................................................................................................ 7	
   3.0	
   Distributional	
  Analysis	
  of	
  RIB	
  Rate ........................................................................ 8	
   3.1	
   Regulatory	
  Framework......................................................................................................11	
   3.2	
   Design	
  of	
  the	
  RIB	
  Rate ........................................................................................................11	
   3.3	
   Proposed	
  Design	
  Parameters ..........................................................................................13	
   3.4	
   Calculating	
  the	
  RIB	
  Rate ....................................................................................................14	
   3.5	
   Price	
  Elasticity ......................................................................................................................14	
   3.6	
   Bill	
  Impact ..............................................................................................................................15	
   3.7	
   Decision	
  from	
  Hearing .......................................................................................................18	
   3.8	
   Distributional	
  Impacts	
  of	
  RIB:	
  Household	
  Income...................................................20	
   3.9	
   Impact	
  of	
  RIB	
  Rate	
  on	
  Low	
  Income	
  Customers ..........................................................27	
   4.0	
   Smart	
  Meters	
  and	
  TOU	
  Pricing...............................................................................30	
   4.1	
   Smart	
  Meter	
  and	
  Smart	
  Grid	
  Technology ....................................................................31	
   4.2	
   Time-­of-­Use	
  Pricing	
  Structures.......................................................................................32	
   4.3	
   Impacts	
  of	
  Smart	
  Meters	
  and	
  TOU	
  Pricing ..................................................................33	
   4.4	
   Challenges	
  for	
  Low	
  Income	
  Customers.........................................................................35	
   4.5	
   The	
  BC	
  Context......................................................................................................................36	
   5.0	
   Alternatives	
  for	
  Household	
  Conservation ..........................................................38	
   5.1	
   Conservation	
  Scenarios .....................................................................................................40	
   5.2	
   Summary	
  of	
  Results ............................................................................................................41	
   5.3	
   Considerations	
  for	
  Low-­Income	
  Energy	
  Efficiency	
  Programs ..............................42	
   6.0	
   Discussion .....................................................................................................................43	
   6.1	
   RIB	
  Rate...................................................................................................................................43	
   6.2	
   Smart	
  metering	
  and	
  TOU	
  pricing....................................................................................44	
   6.3	
   Potential	
  for	
  DSM	
  and	
  Low	
  Energy	
  Efficiency	
  Programs........................................45	
   7.0	
   Conclusion.....................................................................................................................45	
   8.0	
   Bibliography.................................................................................................................47	
   	
    	
    1	
    Jason	
  Owen	
  	
    	
    September	
  14,	
  2010	
    Figures	
  	
   Figure	
  1	
  –	
  BC	
  Hydro’s	
  Supply	
  and	
  Demand	
  Outlook...................................................................6	
   Figure	
  2	
  -­‐	
  Breakdown	
  of	
  Energy	
  Use	
  in	
  BC .....................................................................................7	
   Figure	
  3	
  -­‐	
  System	
  Load	
  Distribution	
  Across	
  Residential	
  Customers ................................ 10	
   Figure	
  4	
  -­‐	
  Average	
  Annual	
  Electricity	
  Consumption	
  vs.	
  Household	
  Income	
  -­‐	
  British	
   Columbia ..................................................................................................................................................... 21	
   Figure	
  5	
  -­‐	
  Percent	
  of	
  Total	
  Income	
  Spent	
  on	
  Electricity	
  for	
  Top	
  and	
  Bottom	
  Two	
   Income	
  Groups ......................................................................................................................................... 26	
   Figure	
  6	
  -­‐	
  Percent	
  of	
  Total	
  Income	
  Spent	
  on	
  Electricity	
  for	
  Top	
  and	
  Bottom	
  Two	
   Income	
  Groups	
  (income	
  adjusted	
  for	
  annual	
  growth)............................................................ 27	
    Tables	
   Table	
  1	
  -­‐	
  Bill	
  Impact	
  Analysis	
  by	
  Income...................................................................................... 16	
   Table	
  2	
  -­‐	
  Average	
  Annual	
  Energy	
  and	
  Electricity	
  Use	
  by	
  Income	
  Group	
  -­‐	
  BC............... 22	
   Table	
  3	
  -­‐	
  RIB	
  Rate	
  and	
  Revenue	
  Equivalent	
  Flat	
  Rate............................................................. 23	
   Table	
  4	
  -­‐	
  Future	
  RIB	
  Price	
  Increases .............................................................................................. 25	
   Table	
  5	
  -­‐	
  Annualized	
  Cost	
  of	
  Energy	
  Efficiency	
  Measures..................................................... 39	
   Table	
  6	
  -­‐	
  Forecasted	
  Annual	
  Energy	
  Consumption,	
  Residential	
  Sector .......................... 41	
   	
    2	
    Jason	
  Owen	
  	
    	
    September	
  14,	
  2010	
    1.0 INTRODUCTION	
   The	
   BC	
   Governments	
   2007	
   Energy	
   Plan	
   was	
   a	
   major	
   first	
   step	
   for	
   this	
   province	
   in	
   addressing	
   the	
   challenges	
   posed	
   by	
   depleting	
   finite	
   resources	
   and	
   climate	
   change	
   through	
  clean	
  energy	
  technology	
  and	
  conservation.	
  	
  With	
  this	
  policy	
  document	
  have	
   come	
  several	
  pieces	
  of	
  new	
  legislation	
  that	
  are	
  changing	
  the	
  way	
  energy	
  is	
  produced	
   and	
   consumed	
   in	
   BC	
   by	
   formalizing	
   greenhouse	
   gas	
   (GHG)	
   emissions	
   reduction	
   targets	
  and	
  setting	
  requirements	
  for	
  electricity	
  conservation.	
  	
  	
   	
   Improving	
   energy	
   efficiency	
   in	
   the	
   residential	
   sector	
   and	
   reducing	
   household	
   electricity	
   consumption	
   are	
   key	
   components	
   in	
   reaching	
   provincial	
   GHG	
   emissions	
   reduction	
   targets	
   and	
   meeting	
   the	
   growing	
   demand	
   for	
   new	
   electricity	
   in	
   an	
   ecologically	
  sensitive	
  way.	
  	
  Two-­‐tiered	
  electricity	
  rates	
  and	
  time-­‐based	
  differential	
   pricing	
  structures	
  are	
  common	
  methods	
  of	
  encouraging	
  households	
  to	
  consume	
  less	
   energy	
  and	
  adjust	
  daily	
  use	
  patterns.	
  	
  However,	
  both	
  of	
  these	
  pricing	
  regimes	
  have	
   the	
  potential	
  to	
  pose	
  challenges	
  for	
  low-­‐income	
  customers.	
   	
   Many	
  valid	
  questions	
  are	
  being	
  asked	
  as	
  to	
  whether	
  these	
  programs	
  will	
  be	
  effective	
   in	
  achieving	
  the	
  goals	
  of	
  an	
  environmentally	
  sustainable	
  provincial	
  energy	
  economy.	
  	
   Less	
   attention	
   is	
   paid,	
   however,	
   to	
   the	
   social	
   justice	
   implications	
   of	
   these	
   broad	
   environmental	
   and	
   fiscal	
   policy	
   actions.	
   	
   Policy	
   directions	
   that	
   meet	
   such	
   environmental	
  targets	
  as	
  energy	
  conservation	
  and	
  reduced	
  GHG	
  emissions	
  often	
  fail	
   to	
   address,	
   and	
   can	
   even	
   exacerbate,	
   the	
   underlying	
   social	
   inequities	
   of	
   disproportionate	
  wealth	
  distribution.	
  	
  	
   	
   The	
  intent	
  of	
  this	
  paper	
  is	
  to	
  examine	
  the	
  electricity	
  pricing	
  structure	
  in	
  BC	
  with	
  a	
   specific	
  lens	
  into	
  the	
  distributional	
  impacts	
  of	
  residential	
  inclining	
  block	
  (RIB)	
  and	
   time	
  of	
  use	
  (TOU)	
  rates	
  across	
  various	
  income	
  levels.	
  	
  The	
  concept	
  of	
  energy	
  poverty	
   will	
   be	
   explored	
   and	
   some	
   suggestions	
   will	
   be	
   made	
   for	
   ways	
   to	
   best	
   address	
   this	
   growing	
  problem	
  through	
  low-­‐income	
  energy	
  efficiency	
  programs.	
  	
    3	
    Jason	
  Owen	
  	
    	
    September	
  14,	
  2010	
    	
   This	
   research	
   begins	
   by	
   presenting	
   background	
   information	
   about	
   the	
   broader	
   research	
   initiative	
   for	
   which	
   this	
   paper	
   has	
   been	
   written.	
   Background	
   on	
   energy	
   supply	
   and	
   consumption	
   and	
   the	
   concept	
   of	
   energy	
   poverty	
   in	
   BC	
   follows.	
   	
   In	
   the	
   next	
   two	
   major	
   sections,	
   this	
   research	
   provides	
   analyses	
   of	
   RIB	
   and	
   TOU	
   pricing	
   structures	
   and	
   their	
   implications	
   for	
   energy	
   poverty	
   in	
   BC.	
   	
   	
   The	
   following	
   section	
   provides	
   a	
   review	
   of	
   the	
   potential	
   for	
   conservation	
   through	
   household	
   energy	
   efficiency	
   improvements	
   as	
   an	
   alternative	
   to	
   large-­‐scale	
   investments	
   in	
   metering	
   infrastructure	
   and	
   provides	
   suggestions	
   for	
   targeted	
   low-­‐income	
   energy	
   efficiency	
   programs.	
  	
  	
    2.0 BACKGROUND	
   2.1 The	
  Climate	
  Justice	
  Project	
   The	
  Climate	
  Justice	
  Project	
  (CJP)	
  is	
  a	
  joint	
  initiative	
  of	
  the	
  Canadian	
  Centre	
  for	
  Policy	
   Alternatives	
  and	
  the	
  University	
  of	
  British	
  Columbia.	
  	
  It	
  is	
  aimed	
  at	
  developing	
  policy	
   to	
   meet	
   the	
   demands	
   of	
   climate	
   change	
   adaptation	
   without	
   compromising	
   social	
   justice	
   values	
   and	
   objectives.	
   	
   The	
   Energy	
   Poverty	
   and	
   Household	
   Energy	
   Efficiency	
   component	
   of	
   the	
   CJP	
   deals	
   with	
   the	
   impacts	
   of	
   household	
   energy	
   efficiency	
   initiatives	
  on	
  low-­‐income	
  households	
  and	
  examines	
  the	
  concept	
  of	
  energy	
  poverty.	
  	
   This	
   paper	
   is	
   the	
   result	
   of	
   independent	
   student	
   research	
   and	
   addresses	
   the	
   implications	
  of	
  energy	
  conservation	
  measures	
  in	
  BC.	
  	
    2.2 BC	
  Energy	
  Context	
   The	
  province	
  of	
  British	
  Columbia	
  has	
  been	
  blessed	
  with	
  abundant	
  natural	
  resources	
   including	
   vast	
   potential	
   for	
   large-­‐scale	
   hydroelectric	
   power	
   generation.	
   	
   For	
   decades,	
   this	
   has	
   provided	
   BC	
   with	
   inexpensive,	
   comparatively	
   clean	
   and	
   arguably	
   renewable	
  electricity.	
  	
  While	
  this	
  resource	
  has	
  provided	
  British	
  Columbians	
  with	
  a	
   reliable	
  source	
  of	
  energy	
  and	
  has	
  done	
  much	
  to	
  support	
  the	
  provincial	
  economy,	
  it	
   may	
   also	
   serve	
   as	
   a	
   barrier	
   to	
   efficiency	
   and	
   reduced	
   consumption	
   by	
   enabling	
   complacency	
  in	
  our	
  use	
  of	
  electricity.	
  	
  	
    4	
    Jason	
  Owen	
  	
    	
    September	
  14,	
  2010	
    	
   Growing	
  demand	
  for	
  electricity	
  in	
  excess	
  of	
  existing	
  supply	
  coupled	
  with	
  increasing	
   severity	
   of	
   GHG	
   emissions	
   reduction	
   targets	
   has	
   led	
   government	
   policy	
   makers	
   to	
   implement	
  a	
  strategy	
  that	
  is	
  designed	
  to	
  stimulate	
  the	
  growth	
  of	
  a	
  renewable	
  power	
   industry	
   in	
   this	
   province.	
   	
   As	
   such,	
   the	
   BC	
   2010	
   Clean	
   Energy	
   Act	
   (Bill	
   17)	
   legislates	
   a	
  structure	
  for	
  formulating	
  long-­‐term	
  contracts	
  with	
  independent,	
  renewable	
  power	
   producers.	
   	
   This	
   is	
   meant	
   to	
   guarantee	
   rates	
   that	
   can	
   support	
   their	
   capital	
   investments	
  in	
  emerging	
  technologies.	
  	
  Given	
  this	
  new	
  policy	
  climate	
  and	
  the	
  cost	
  to	
   produce	
  incremental	
  new	
  supply	
  of	
  clean	
  electricity,	
  meeting	
  the	
  growing	
  demand	
   in	
  this	
  province	
  has	
  become	
  considerably	
  more	
  expensive.	
   	
   Forecasts	
   of	
   BC	
   Hydro’s	
   growth	
   in	
   demand	
   for	
   electricity	
   suggest	
   that	
   without	
   the	
   implementation	
  of	
  energy	
  efficiency	
  and	
  conservation	
  measures,	
  demand	
  is	
  likely	
  to	
   grow	
  upwards	
  of	
  35%	
  over	
  the	
  next	
  20	
  years	
  (BC	
  Hydro,	
  2009).	
  	
  Rather	
  than	
  meet	
   the	
   growing	
   demand	
   with	
   new	
   supply,	
   BC	
   Hydro	
   has	
   taken	
   the	
   approach	
   that	
   demand-­‐side	
   management	
   (DSM)	
   is	
   more	
   cost	
   effective	
   and	
   better	
   for	
   the	
   environment.	
  	
  The	
  following	
  chart	
  illustrates	
  the	
  growing	
  gap	
  between	
  supply	
  and	
   demand	
  of	
  electricity	
  and	
  the	
  potential	
  role	
  for	
  DSM.	
  	
   	
   	
   	
   	
   	
   	
   	
   	
   	
   	
    5	
    Jason	
  Owen	
  	
    	
    September	
  14,	
  2010	
    Figure	
  1	
  –	
  BC	
  Hydro’s	
  Supply	
  and	
  Demand	
  Outlook1	
    	
   The	
   residential	
   sector	
   accounts	
   for	
   a	
   significant	
   proportion	
   of	
   total	
   energy	
   consumption	
   in	
   BC.	
   	
   As	
   this	
   demand	
   is	
   closely	
   linked	
   to	
   customer	
   behavior,	
   this	
   represents	
   a	
   substantial	
   target	
   for	
   DSM	
   measures.	
   	
   The	
   figure	
   below	
   shows	
   the	
   breakdown	
  of	
  total	
  energy	
  use	
  in	
  BC	
  and	
  the	
  residential	
  share	
  by	
  end-­‐use	
  and	
  fuel	
   type.	
   	
   	
   	
   	
   	
   	
   	
    	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
   1	
  Figure	
  extracted	
  from:	
  BC	
  Hydro.	
  (2009).	
  BC	
  Hydro's	
  Electricity	
  Conservation	
  Report.	
  Retrieved	
    August	
  23,	
  2010,	
  from	
  http://www.bchydro.com/:	
   http://www.bchydro.com/etc/medialib/internet/documents/planning_regulatory/meeting_demand /DSM_Report_2009.Par.0001.File.GDS09_316_DSM_Report_November_6.pdf	
    6	
    Jason	
  Owen	
  	
    	
    September	
  14,	
  2010	
    Figure	
  2	
  -­	
  Breakdown	
  of	
  Energy	
  Use	
  in	
  BC2	
    	
    	
    2.3 	
   Energy	
  Poverty	
  in	
  BC	
   Energy	
  poverty	
  occurs	
  when	
  the	
  quality	
  of	
  life	
  in	
  a	
  household	
  is	
  compromised	
  by	
  the	
   cost	
  of	
  energy.	
  In	
  a	
  2007	
  report	
  produced	
  for	
  the	
  BC	
  Ministry	
  of	
  Energy,	
  Mines	
  and	
   Petroleum	
   Resources,	
   Liz	
   Kelly	
   investigates	
   the	
   existing	
   energy	
   burden	
   on	
   low-­‐ income	
  families	
  in	
  BC	
  and	
  provides	
  a	
  critique	
  of	
  some	
  of	
  the	
  recent	
  attempts	
  by	
  the	
   provincial	
  government	
  to	
  address	
  household	
  energy	
  efficiency.	
  	
  In	
  this	
  report,	
  Kelly	
   found	
  that	
  in	
  many	
  jurisdictions,	
  an	
  annual	
  energy	
  bill	
  that	
  amounts	
  to	
  10%	
  or	
  more	
   of	
   a	
   household’s	
   after	
   tax	
   income	
   is	
   considered	
   to	
   be	
   a	
   disproportionate	
   energy	
   burden	
   that	
   could	
   lead	
   to	
   energy	
   poverty	
   (Kelly,	
   2007).	
   	
   Households	
   faced	
   with	
   a	
   disproportionate	
   energy	
   burden	
   are	
   often	
   faced	
   with	
   an	
   inability	
   to	
   pay	
   for	
   other	
   essential	
  elements	
  of	
  a	
  healthy	
  lifestyle	
  such	
  as	
  food,	
  shelter	
  and	
  clothing	
  in	
  order	
  to	
   heat	
  their	
  homes	
  to	
  a	
  comfortable	
  temperature	
  (Kelly,	
  2007).	
  	
  	
   	
    	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
   2	
  Data	
  Source:	
  Statistics	
  Canada.	
  (2008).	
  Report	
  on	
  Energy	
  Supply	
  and	
  Demand	
  in	
  Canada.	
  Retrieved	
    June	
  1,	
  2010,	
  from	
  http://www.statcan.gc.ca:	
  http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/57-­‐003-­‐x/57-­‐003-­‐ x2008000-­‐eng.pdf	
    7	
    Jason	
  Owen	
  	
    	
    September	
  14,	
  2010	
    This	
  problem	
  is	
  amplified	
  by	
  the	
  fact	
  that	
  low	
  income	
  households,	
  which	
  are	
  at	
  the	
   greatest	
   risk	
   of	
   facing	
   a	
   disproportionate	
   energy	
   burden,	
   are	
   most	
   often	
   the	
   least	
   able	
  to	
  alter	
  their	
  use	
  of	
  energy	
  or	
  pay	
  for	
  energy	
  efficiency	
  improvements.	
  	
  Further,	
   data	
   shows	
   that	
   households	
   in	
   the	
   lowest	
   income	
   quintile	
   in	
   Canada	
   occupy	
   the	
   greatest	
   proportion	
   of	
   older	
   homes	
   with	
   low	
   efficiency	
   insulation	
   and	
   appliances	
   (Kelly,	
  2007).	
  	
  	
   	
   Energy	
   efficiency	
   programs,	
   which	
   often	
   provide	
   assistance	
   to	
   homeowners	
   to	
   install	
  energy	
  efficient	
  retrofits,	
  require	
  that	
  the	
  participant	
  pay	
  for	
  at	
  least	
  a	
  portion	
   of	
   the	
   costs	
   and	
   are	
   generally	
   funded	
   through	
   energy	
   rate	
   increases.	
   	
   Customers	
   already	
   faced	
   with	
   a	
   disproportionate	
   energy	
   burden	
   cannot	
   likely	
   afford	
   to	
   participate.	
  	
  The	
  result	
  is	
  that	
  they	
  will	
  see	
  none	
  of	
  the	
  benefits	
  of	
  these	
  programs	
   while	
  helping	
  to	
  fund	
  them	
  through	
  their	
  energy	
  bill	
  (McEachern	
  &	
  Vivian,	
  2010).	
  	
  	
   	
   Renters	
  face	
  the	
  additional	
  challenge	
  of	
  the	
  split	
  incentive	
  between	
  the	
  short-­‐term	
   savings	
  they	
  may	
  receive	
  through	
  energy	
  efficiency	
  gains	
  and	
  a	
  landlord	
  who	
  owns	
   the	
  building	
  but	
  usually	
  does	
  not	
  pay	
  the	
  energy	
  bill	
  (Kelly,	
  2007).	
  	
   	
   In	
   order	
   to	
   meet	
   the	
   targets	
   set	
   out	
   by	
   the	
   2007	
   Energy	
   Plan	
   and	
   the	
   2010	
   Clean	
   Energy	
   Act,	
   BC	
   Hydro	
   has	
   begun	
   to	
   implement	
   new	
   pricing	
   structures	
   designed	
   to	
   encourage	
  responsible	
  use	
  of	
  electricity	
  and	
  conservation.	
  	
  The	
  first	
  of	
  these	
  is	
  the	
   RIB	
   rate,	
   established	
   in	
   2008	
   and	
   government	
   mandated	
   smart	
   meters	
   that	
   will	
   bring	
  TOU	
  pricing	
  into	
  the	
  fore	
  by	
  2012.	
  	
  With	
  sharp	
  cost	
  increases	
  that	
  are	
  required	
   to	
  recover	
  the	
  growing	
  costs	
  of	
  incremental	
  new	
  supply	
  of	
  electricity,	
  these	
  new	
  rate	
   structures	
   have	
   the	
   potential	
   to	
   place	
   an	
   added	
   burden	
   on	
   those	
   who	
   are	
   already	
   experiencing,	
  or	
  are	
  vulnerable	
  to,	
  energy	
  poverty.	
  	
  	
    3.0 	
   DISTRIBUTIONAL	
  ANALYSIS	
  OF	
  RIB	
  RATE	
   This	
   section	
   is	
   focused	
   on	
   the	
   recently	
   implemented	
   two-­‐tiered	
   pricing	
   structure	
   referred	
  to	
  by	
  BC	
  Hydro	
  as	
  the	
  RIB	
  rate.	
  	
  The	
  majority	
  of	
  the	
  research	
  on	
  this	
  topic	
    8	
    Jason	
  Owen	
  	
    	
    September	
  14,	
  2010	
    came	
  from	
  documentation	
  of	
  the	
  public	
  hearing	
  conducted	
  by	
  the	
  British	
  Columbia	
   Utilities	
   Commission	
   (BCUC)	
   following	
   BC	
   Hydro’s	
   RIB	
   rate	
   application.	
   	
   BCUC	
   is	
   a	
   regulatory	
   agency	
   established	
   under	
   the	
   Utilities	
   Commission	
   Act	
   that	
   oversees	
   the	
   activities	
  of	
  energy	
  utilities	
  in	
  the	
  province.	
  	
  	
   	
   In	
   this	
   section,	
   the	
   analysis	
   presented	
   as	
   evidence	
   throughout	
   the	
   hearing	
   is	
   reviewed	
   with	
   a	
   specific	
   lens	
   to	
   the	
   implications	
   for	
   low-­‐income	
   households.	
   	
   In	
   section	
   3.8,	
   an	
   in-­‐depth	
   analysis	
   of	
   the	
   potential	
   impacts	
   of	
   the	
   RIB	
   rate	
   on	
   low-­‐ income	
   households,	
   conducted	
   for	
   this	
   paper,	
   is	
   presented,	
   followed	
   by	
   a	
   discussion	
   of	
  the	
  repercussions	
  for	
  social	
  justice.	
   	
   In	
   February	
   2008	
   BC	
   Hydro	
   submitted	
   it’s	
   application	
   to	
   the	
   BCUC	
   for	
   implementation	
  of	
  the	
  RIB	
  rate	
  for	
  billing	
  its	
  residential	
  customers.	
  	
  Referred	
  to	
  by	
   BC	
   Hydro	
   as	
   a	
   “conservation	
   rate”,	
   the	
   RIB	
   rate	
   consists	
   of	
   a	
   two-­‐step	
   electricity-­‐ pricing	
  scheme	
  that	
  is	
  intended	
  to	
  encourage	
  electricity	
  conservation	
  through	
  direct	
   price	
  signals	
  to	
  its	
  residential	
  customers.	
  	
  	
   	
   The	
  plan	
  to	
  implement	
  the	
  RIB	
  rate	
  was	
  largely	
  driven	
  by	
  the	
  policy	
  objectives	
  set	
   out	
   in	
   the	
   provincial	
   governments	
   2007	
   Energy	
   Plan.	
   	
   These	
   objectives	
   include:	
   a	
   target	
   of	
   50%	
   of	
   Hydro’s	
   incremental	
   electricity	
   demand	
   to	
   be	
   met	
   through	
   conservation	
   by	
   2020;	
   and	
   a	
   requirement	
   that	
   BC	
   utilities	
   explore	
   new	
   rate	
   structures	
  that	
  encourage	
  energy	
  conservation	
  (The	
  Government	
  of	
  the	
  Province	
  of	
   BC,	
  2007).	
  	
  The	
  2010	
  Clean	
  Energy	
  Act	
  further	
  expresses	
  these	
  objectives	
  and	
  puts	
   into	
   legislation	
   a	
   required	
   reduction	
   of	
   the	
   “expected	
   increase	
   in	
   demand	
   for	
   electricity	
  by	
  the	
  year	
  2020”	
  of	
  at	
  least	
  66%	
  (Bill	
  17	
  -­‐	
  2010	
  Clean	
  Energy	
  Act,	
  2010).	
   	
   BC	
   Hydro	
   has	
   experienced	
   a	
   rapidly	
   growing	
   customer	
   base	
   and	
   increasing	
   demand	
   for	
  electricity	
  that	
  are	
  stretching	
  the	
  utility	
  to	
  the	
  limits	
  of	
  its	
  existing	
  hydroelectric	
   output	
  and	
  transmission	
  capabilities.	
  	
  With	
  the	
  province’s	
  focus	
  on	
  developing	
  run-­‐ of-­‐the-­‐river	
   and	
   other	
   renewable	
   sources	
   to	
   meet	
   growing	
   demand,	
   the	
   future	
   costs	
   of	
   new	
   supply	
   are	
   much	
   higher	
   than	
   the	
   embedded	
   cost	
   of	
   the	
   existing	
   assets.	
  	
   9	
    Jason	
  Owen	
  	
    	
    September	
  14,	
  2010	
    General	
  rate	
  increases	
  and	
  conservation-­‐pricing	
  structures	
  are	
  ways	
  to	
  address	
  both	
   the	
  increased	
  future	
  revenue	
  and	
  conservation	
  requirements.	
   	
   According	
  to	
  BC	
  Hydro,	
  the	
  top	
  20%	
  of	
  residential	
  customers,	
  ranked	
  for	
  electricity	
   consumption,	
  in	
  BC	
  represents	
  approximately	
  44%	
  of	
  the	
  total	
  residential	
  demand.	
  	
   On	
  average,	
  households	
  in	
  this	
  quintile	
  consume	
  25,000	
  kWh	
  of	
  electricity.	
  	
  This	
  is	
   almost	
  9	
  times	
  the	
  average	
  for	
  the	
  bottom	
  quintile	
  and	
  more	
  than	
  2	
  times	
  the	
  overall	
   residential	
   average	
   (BC	
   Hydro,	
   2008c).	
   	
   The	
   chart	
   below,	
   extracted	
   from	
   the	
   2008	
   RIB	
  Application	
  shows	
  the	
  disproportionate	
  amount	
  of	
  electricity	
  consumed	
  by	
  the	
   minority	
  of	
  customers.	
   	
   Figure	
  3	
  -­	
  System	
  Load	
  Distribution	
  Across	
  Residential	
  Customers3	
    	
   Annual	
  Electricity	
  Consumption	
  (1,000s	
  of	
  kWh)	
    	
   The	
  RIB	
  rate	
  is	
  intended	
  to	
  directly	
  address	
  the	
  disproportionate	
  load	
  imposed	
  on	
   energy	
   demand	
   from	
   BC	
   Hydro	
   by	
   a	
   minority	
   of	
   residential	
   customers.	
   	
   Large	
   	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
   3	
  Figure	
  extracted	
  from:	
  BC	
  Hydro.	
  (2008).	
  Residential	
  Inclining	
  Block	
  Application.	
  Retrieved	
  June	
  22,	
    2010,	
  from	
  BCUC	
  Website:	
  http://www.bcuc.com/Documents/Proceedings/2008/DOC_18056_B-­‐ 1_Residential_Inclining-­‐Block-­‐Rate.pdf	
    10	
    Jason	
  Owen	
  	
    	
    September	
  14,	
  2010	
    consumers	
  will	
  be	
  subjected	
  to	
  a	
  higher	
  unit	
  rate	
  that	
  is	
  designed	
  to	
  both	
  recoup	
  the	
   increasing	
  costs	
  of	
  incremental	
  new	
  supply	
  and	
  to	
  encourage	
  conservation	
  through	
   investment	
  in	
  energy	
  efficiency	
  measures	
  and	
  reduced	
  consumption.	
    3.1 Regulatory	
  Framework	
   As	
   a	
   utility	
   regulated	
   by	
   the	
   BCUC,	
   BC	
   Hydro	
   is	
   responsible	
   for	
   periodically	
   reviewing	
  its	
  rate	
  structure	
  and	
  submitting	
  applications	
  to	
  the	
  commission	
  for	
  any	
   proposed	
   changes.	
   	
   In	
   March	
   2007,	
   BC	
   Hydro	
   filed	
   one	
   such	
   application	
   aimed	
   at	
   restructuring	
   the	
   rates	
   paid	
   by	
   various	
   customer	
   classes.	
   	
   This	
   was	
   the	
   first	
   since	
   1991	
  when	
  the	
  utility	
  applied	
  to	
  replace	
  the	
  previous	
  declining	
  block	
  rate	
  structure	
   with	
  a	
  flat	
  rate	
  (BCUC,	
  2007).	
  	
   	
   In	
   October	
   2007,	
   following	
   a	
   public	
   hearing	
   of	
   BC	
   Hydro’s	
   2007	
   Rate	
   Design	
   Application	
   (2007	
   RDA),	
   the	
   BCUC	
   directed	
   BC	
   Hydro	
   to	
   adjust	
   its	
   rates	
   in	
   equal	
   increments	
  over	
  the	
  following	
  three	
  years	
  in	
  order	
  to	
  achieve	
  an	
  overall	
  revenue-­‐to-­‐ costs	
   ratio	
   of	
   1	
   (BC	
   Hydro,	
   2008c).	
   	
   This	
   decision	
   set	
   in	
   place	
   a	
   process	
   by	
   which	
   BC	
   Hydro	
   could	
   begin	
   to	
   recover	
   the	
   increasing	
   costs	
   of	
   new	
   supply	
   through	
   applications	
  to	
  the	
  BCUC.	
  	
  	
  	
   	
   Following	
  the	
  2007	
  RDA	
  decision,	
  BC	
  Hydro	
  filed	
  an	
  application	
  for	
  approval	
  of	
  its	
   projected	
   revenue	
   requirements	
   for	
   the	
   2009	
   and	
   2010	
   fiscal	
   years	
   (F09/F10	
   RRA).	
  	
   This	
  would	
  be	
  the	
  basis	
  for	
  the	
  future	
  rate	
  increases	
  to	
  the	
  residential	
  class	
  and	
  the	
   baseline	
   for	
   analysis	
   of	
   the	
   RIB	
   rate,	
   proposed	
   in	
   the	
   RIB	
   application	
   submitted	
   immediately	
  after	
  the	
  F09/F10	
  RRA	
  (BC	
  Hydro,	
  2008c).	
    3.2 Design	
  of	
  the	
  RIB	
  Rate	
   The	
   basic	
   principle	
   of	
   the	
   RIB	
   rate	
   design	
   is	
   that	
   customers	
   consuming	
   excess	
   amounts	
   of	
   electricity	
   ought	
   to	
   be	
   responsible	
   for	
   a	
   larger	
   share	
   of	
   the	
   costs	
   than	
   those	
   who	
   may	
   already	
   be	
   conserving.	
   	
   As	
   such,	
   an	
   electricity	
   consumption	
   threshold	
   is	
   established	
   beyond	
   which	
   consumers	
   are	
   billed	
   at	
   a	
   higher	
   rate.	
   	
   It	
   was	
   established	
   in	
   BC	
   Hydro’s	
   2008	
   RIB	
   application	
   that	
   the	
   rate	
   structure	
   would	
   be	
    11	
    Jason	
  Owen	
  	
    	
    September	
  14,	
  2010	
    designed	
   to	
   be	
   revenue	
   neutral	
   with	
   respect	
   to	
   a	
   flat	
   rate	
   meeting	
   equivalent	
   revenue	
  requirement	
  projections	
  for	
  the	
  residential	
  class.	
   	
   A	
  number	
  of	
  design	
  criteria	
  were	
  established	
  in	
  the	
  2007	
  RDA	
  that	
  were	
  considered	
   essential	
  in	
  meeting	
  the	
  statutory	
  requirement	
  of	
  a	
  rate	
  structure	
  that	
  is	
  “fair,	
  just	
   and	
  not	
  unduly	
  discriminatory”	
  (BCUC,	
  2007).	
  These	
  are:	
   	
   1. “Recovery	
  of	
  the	
  revenue	
  requirement;	
   	
   2. Fair	
  apportionment	
  of	
  costs	
  among	
  customers;	
    	
    3. Price	
  signals	
  that	
  encourage	
  efficient	
  use	
  and	
  discourage	
  inefficient	
  use;	
   	
    4. Customer	
  understanding	
  and	
  acceptance;	
   	
   5. Practical	
  and	
  cost	
  effective	
  to	
  implement;	
    	
   6. Rate	
  and	
  bill	
  stability;	
    	
    7. Provision	
  of	
  revenue	
  stability;	
  and	
   	
    8. Avoidance	
  of	
  undue	
  discrimination	
  (BCUC,	
  2007).”	
    	
   In	
   addition	
   to	
   the	
   8	
   criteria	
   listed	
   above,	
   BC	
   Hydro	
   established	
   a	
   set	
   of	
   “economic	
   efficiency	
  tests”	
  for	
  the	
  RIB	
  rate	
  structure	
  that	
  would	
  have	
  to	
  be	
  carefully	
  balanced	
   throughout	
  the	
  design	
  process:	
   	
   •  • 	
    “No	
   customer	
   should	
   see	
   a	
   rate	
   decrease,	
   to	
   avoid	
   providing	
   disincentives	
   to	
   conservation;	
   	
   As	
   many	
   customers	
   as	
   possible	
   should	
   see	
   the	
   Step-­2	
   Rate,	
   to	
   maximize	
   the	
   number	
  of	
  customers	
  that	
  have	
  incentives	
  to	
  conserve;	
    •  The	
  differential	
  between	
  the	
  Step-­1	
  Rate	
  and	
  Step-­2	
  Rate	
  should	
  be	
  sufficiently	
   large	
  to	
  provide	
  a	
  meaningful	
  incentive	
  for	
  conservation;	
  and	
    •  The	
  Step-­2	
  Rate	
  should	
  be	
  more	
  reflective	
  of,	
  while	
  not	
  exceeding,	
  the	
  full	
  cost	
   of	
  new	
  supply	
  (plus	
  fixed	
  costs),	
  relative	
  to	
  the	
  otherwise	
  applicable	
  flat	
  rate,	
  to	
   incent	
  more	
  conservation	
  than	
  under	
  a	
  flat	
  rate	
  (BC	
  Hydro,	
  2008c).”	
    	
    	
   12	
    Jason	
  Owen	
  	
    	
    September	
  14,	
  2010	
    In	
   an	
   analysis	
   of	
   the	
   flat	
   rate	
   structure	
   regarding	
   the	
   above	
   principles,	
   BC	
   Hydro	
   determined	
   that	
   the	
   previous	
   rate	
   structure	
   did	
   not	
   send	
   effective	
   price	
   signals	
   to	
   residential	
   customers.	
   Further,	
   it	
   did	
   not	
   account	
   for	
   the	
   increasing	
   costs	
   of	
   incremental	
   new	
   supply.	
   	
   Rather,	
   the	
   embedded	
   cost	
   of	
   BC	
   Hydro’s	
   existing	
   assets	
   were	
   distributed	
   across	
   the	
   customer	
   base	
   proportionally	
   with	
   respect	
   to	
   energy	
   consumption	
  (BC	
  Hydro,	
  2008c).	
  	
  	
  It	
  is	
  clear	
  from	
  BC	
  Hydro’s	
  concurrent	
  F09/F10	
   RRA	
   and	
   RIB	
   rate	
   applications	
   that	
   while	
   all	
   of	
   the	
   design	
   principles	
   and	
   criteria	
   were	
   considered	
   in	
   the	
   rate	
   design	
   process,	
   the	
   need	
   for	
   a	
   rate	
   structure	
   that	
   accounts	
   for	
   the	
   incremental	
   cost	
   of	
   future	
   supply	
   was	
   paramount	
   and	
   potential	
   energy	
  conservation	
  was	
  a	
  desirable	
  secondary	
  outcome.	
    3.3 Proposed	
  Design	
  Parameters	
   The	
   billing	
   structure	
   of	
   the	
   RIB	
   rate	
   consists	
   of	
   3	
   major	
   components	
   whose	
   numerical	
  values	
  determine	
  how	
  each	
  customer	
  will	
  be	
  impacted	
  and	
  the	
  resulting	
   effect	
   on	
   BC	
   Hydro’s	
   revenues	
   and	
   overall	
   conservation.	
   	
   The	
   basic	
   components	
   of	
   the	
  RIB	
  rate	
  include	
  a	
  basic	
  charge	
  (or	
  daily	
  connection	
  fee),	
  an	
  initial	
  rate	
  charged	
   per	
   unit	
   of	
   energy	
   consumption	
   (step	
   1	
   rate)	
   and	
   an	
   increased	
   secondary	
   rate	
   for	
   consumption	
   (step	
   2	
   rate)	
   in	
   excess	
   of	
   a	
   specified	
   bi-­‐monthly	
   threshold	
   (step	
   2	
   threshold).	
  	
   	
   By	
   nature	
   of	
   this	
   type	
   of	
   rate	
   structure,	
   there	
   are	
   three	
   avenues	
   for	
   affecting	
   the	
   distribution	
  of	
  the	
  bill	
  impact	
  across	
  the	
  customer	
  base:	
  	
   	
   1. The	
   basic	
   charge	
   is	
   applied	
   as	
   a	
   daily	
   rate	
   to	
   every	
   customer	
   regardless	
   of	
   consumption	
  level;	
  	
   2. The	
  step	
  1	
  rate	
  is	
  applied	
  to	
  all	
  customers	
  at	
  a	
  fixed	
  rate;	
  and	
   3. The	
  step	
  2	
  rate	
  is	
  also	
  fixed,	
  but	
  the	
  impact	
  on	
  customers	
  varies	
  depending	
   on	
  the	
  chosen	
  step	
  2	
  threshold.	
  	
  	
   	
   The	
  basic	
  charge	
  is	
  intended	
  to	
  recover	
  some	
  of	
  the	
  fixed	
  service	
  costs.	
  	
  Based	
  on	
  the	
   design	
  criteria	
  set	
  out	
  in	
  the	
  2007	
  RDA,	
  the	
  design	
  of	
  the	
  rate	
  structure	
  is	
  confined	
    13	
    Jason	
  Owen	
  	
    	
    September	
  14,	
  2010	
    by	
  the	
  requirement	
  that:	
  a)	
  no	
  customers	
  should	
  see	
  a	
  rate	
  decrease;	
  and	
  b)	
  the	
  step	
   2	
  rate	
  should	
  not	
  exceed	
  the	
  full	
  cost	
  of	
  new	
  supply	
  (BCUC,	
  2008b).	
  	
  	
    3.4 Calculating	
  the	
  RIB	
  Rate	
   Development	
   of	
   the	
   specific	
   parameters	
   of	
   the	
   RIB	
   rate	
   is	
   an	
   iterative	
   process	
   and	
   requires	
  regular	
  updates.	
  	
  In	
  BC	
  Hydro’s	
  RIB	
  Application,	
  it	
  was	
  proposed	
  that	
  the	
   RIB	
  rate	
  structure	
  be	
  calculated	
  based	
  on	
  the	
  consumption	
  data	
  from	
  the	
  previous	
   two	
  years.	
  	
  The	
  first	
  step	
  in	
  this	
  process	
  would	
  then	
  be	
  to	
  determine	
  a	
  bi-­‐monthly	
   step	
   2	
   threshold.	
   	
   In	
   BC	
   Hydro’s	
   proposal,	
   the	
   step	
   1	
   rate	
   and	
   basic	
   charge	
   would	
   have	
   remained	
   the	
   same	
   as	
   in	
   the	
   previous	
   flat	
   rate	
   structure,	
   escalating	
   annually	
   for	
  inflation.	
  	
  Using	
  the	
  previous	
  2	
  years	
  of	
  consumption	
  data,	
  the	
  projected	
  revenue	
   from	
  the	
  basic	
  charge	
  and	
  step	
  1	
  rate	
  could	
  be	
  approximated.	
  	
  The	
  step	
  2	
  rate	
  would	
   then	
   be	
   calculated	
   annually	
   based	
   on	
   the	
   residual	
   component	
   of	
   the	
   projected	
   revenue	
   requirement	
   that	
   is	
   not	
   met	
   by	
   the	
   step	
   1	
   rate	
   and	
   basic	
   charge.	
   	
   This	
   proposed	
  rate	
  structure	
  was	
  designed	
  to	
  be	
  revenue	
  neutral	
  with	
  respect	
  to	
  the	
  flat	
   rate	
  structure.	
  	
   	
   In	
   theory,	
   this	
   proposed	
   design	
   was	
   accepted	
   by	
   BCUC.	
   The	
   methodology	
   for	
   calculating	
   the	
   step	
   1	
   and	
   2	
   rates	
   in	
   BC	
   Hydro’s	
   2008	
   RIB	
   Application	
   was	
   revised	
   through	
  the	
  process	
  of	
  the	
  BCUC	
  hearing,	
  as	
  described	
  below,	
  but	
  it	
  is	
  worthwhile	
  to	
   consider	
  as	
  it	
  provides	
  insight	
  into	
  the	
  implications	
  of	
  the	
  rate	
  design	
  process.	
    3.5 Price	
  Elasticity	
   BC	
  Hydro	
  estimated	
  that	
  the	
  elasticity	
  of	
  demand	
  for	
  the	
  proposed	
  RIB	
  rate	
  would	
   fall	
   somewhere	
   between	
   -­‐0.075	
   and	
   -­‐0.15	
   and	
   would	
   be	
   generally	
   uniform.	
   This	
   means	
   that	
   for	
   each	
   price	
   increase	
   of	
   1%	
   there	
   will	
   be	
   a	
   reduction	
   in	
   demand	
   of	
   0.075	
   –	
   0.15%.	
   	
   When	
   compared	
   to	
   an	
   estimated	
   elasticity	
   of	
   demand	
   of	
   the	
   previous	
  flat	
  rate	
  structure	
  of	
  -­‐0.05,	
  the	
  RIB	
  rate	
  was	
  estimated	
  to	
  result	
  in	
  200-­‐500	
   GWh/year	
   of	
   conservation	
   over	
   a	
   flat	
   rate	
   by	
   the	
   2010	
   fiscal	
   year	
   (BCUC,	
   2008b).	
  	
   Assumptions	
   for	
   these	
   calculations	
   were	
   drawn	
   from	
   various	
   studies	
   of	
   demand	
    14	
    Jason	
  Owen	
  	
    	
    September	
  14,	
  2010	
    response	
  in	
  jurisdictions	
  with	
  similar	
  conditions	
  to	
  BC	
  with	
  respect	
  to	
  climate	
  and	
   resources.	
  	
   	
   The	
  logic	
  presented	
  in	
  BC	
  Hydro’s	
  RIB	
  application	
  suggests	
  that	
  the	
  customers	
  who	
   consume	
  less	
  electricity	
  and	
  are	
  less	
  likely	
  to	
  exceed	
  the	
  step	
  2	
  threshold	
  will	
  have	
   reduced	
   incentive	
   to	
   conserve	
   from	
   the	
   previous	
   flat	
   rate	
   structure	
   since	
   the	
   flat	
   rate	
   would	
   increase	
   at	
   a	
   higher	
   rate	
   than	
   the	
   step	
   1	
   RIB	
   rate	
   over	
   time.	
   	
   The	
   incentive	
   for	
   larger	
   consumers	
   to	
   conserve	
   will	
   be	
   greater	
   under	
   the	
   flat	
   rate	
   and	
   this	
  incentive	
  will	
  continue	
  to	
  increase	
  over	
  time.	
  	
  As	
  the	
  larger	
  consumers	
  account	
   for	
   a	
   much	
   larger	
   proportion	
   of	
   overall	
   residential	
   consumption,	
   BC	
   Hydro	
   suggested	
   that	
   the	
   increased	
   incentive	
   for	
   conservation	
   in	
   this	
   group	
   would	
   more	
   than	
  offset	
  a	
  reduced	
  incentive	
  among	
  the	
  lower	
  consumers.	
  	
  The	
  overall	
  effect,	
  as	
   predicted	
  by	
  BC	
  Hydro,	
  would	
  be	
  an	
  overall	
  greater	
  amount	
  of	
  conservation	
  with	
  the	
   RIB	
  rate	
  than	
  under	
  the	
  previous	
  flat	
  rate.	
    3.6 Bill	
  Impact	
   As	
   part	
   of	
   its	
   2008	
   RIB	
   rate	
   application	
   to	
   BCUC,	
   BC	
   Hydro	
   conducted	
   a	
   “Bill	
   Impact	
   Study”.	
  	
  It	
  suggested	
  that	
  75%	
  of	
  residential	
  customers	
  would	
  be	
  better	
  off,	
  in	
  terms	
   of	
   bill	
   increases,	
   with	
   the	
   proposed	
   RIB	
   rate	
   than	
   they	
   would	
   have	
   been	
   under	
   a	
   flat	
   rate	
  escalating	
  in	
  accordance	
  with	
  F09/F10	
  RRA	
  rate	
  increases	
  (BC	
  Hydro,	
  2008b).	
  	
  	
   	
   The	
   Bill	
   Impact	
   Study	
   included	
   an	
   assessment	
   of	
   the	
   proposed	
   rate	
   structure	
   with	
   respect	
   to	
   potentially	
   adverse	
   impacts	
   on	
   residential	
   customers	
   of	
   various	
   groupings.	
  	
  The	
  groupings,	
  or	
  segments	
  as	
  referred	
  to	
  in	
  the	
  application,	
  are	
  based	
   on	
   household	
   income,	
   region	
   of	
   the	
   province,	
   dwelling	
   type,	
   household	
   size,	
   heating	
   fuel	
  type,	
  and	
  customer	
  age.	
  	
  The	
  intention	
  was	
  to	
  assess	
  whether	
  adverse	
  impacts	
   of	
  the	
  RIB	
  rate	
  would	
  be	
  concentrated	
  within	
  any	
  of	
  the	
  customer	
  groupings.	
  	
  	
   	
   In	
  response	
  to	
  various	
  calls	
  from	
  interveners	
  for	
  evidence	
  of	
  this	
  analysis,	
  BC	
  Hydro	
   produced	
   a	
   series	
   of	
   tables	
   to	
   demonstrate	
   the	
   bi-­‐monthly	
   impacts	
   of	
   the	
   RIB	
   rate	
   compared	
  to	
  the	
  previous	
  flat	
  rate	
  over	
  a	
  typical	
  year	
  (based	
  on	
  the	
  2006	
  Residential	
    15	
    Jason	
  Owen	
  	
    	
    September	
  14,	
  2010	
    End-­Use	
   Study)	
   for	
   each	
   of	
   the	
   customer	
   groupings.	
   	
   The	
   table	
   below	
   presents	
   the	
   data	
  from	
  this	
  assessment	
  based	
  on	
  household	
  income	
  groupings.	
   	
   Table	
  1	
  -­	
  Bill	
  Impact	
  Analysis	
  by	
  Income4	
    	
   	
   	
   	
   -­‐	
  See	
  next	
  page	
  -­‐	
    	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
   4	
  Figure	
  extracted	
  from:	
  BC	
  Hydro.	
  (2008).	
  Responses	
  to	
  BCUC	
  and	
  Intervenors	
  Information	
  Request	
  No	
    2.	
  Retrieved	
  July	
  1,	
  2010,	
  from	
  BCUC	
  Website:	
  	
   http://www.bcuc.com/Documents/Proceedings/2008/DOC_18749_B-­‐7_BCH-­‐IR2-­‐to-­‐ BCUC&Intervenors.pdf	
    16	
    Table 1 Household Income  Under $20,000  $20,000 to under $40,000  Page 1 of 6  $40,000 to under $60,000  $60,000 to under $80,000  $120,000 or over  Total  187,500  376,500  318,000  247,500  234,000  135,000  1,500,000  364  731  665  523  452  220  Variable Average Monthly kWh Bi-monthly Bill Flat Rate Bi-Monthly Bill RIB Rate % Difference: Rib vs. Flat Average Monthly kWh Bi-monthly Bill Flat Rate Bi-Monthly Bill RIB Rate % Difference: Rib vs. Flat Average Monthly kWh Bi-monthly Bill Flat Rate Bi-Monthly Bill RIB Rate % Difference: Rib vs. Flat Average Monthly kWh Bi-monthly Bill Flat Rate Bi-Monthly Bill RIB Rate % Difference: Rib vs. Flat Average Monthly kWh Bi-monthly Bill Flat Rate Bi-Monthly Bill RIB Rate % Difference: Rib vs. Flat Average Monthly kWh Bi-monthly Bill Flat Rate Bi-Monthly Bill RIB Rate % Difference: Rib vs. Flat  Apr09  May09  Jun09  Jul09  Aug09  Sep09  Oct09  Nov09  Dec09  Jan10  Feb10  Mar10  Total fiscal  Estimated total revenue from all customers in group  596  501  423  415  423  459  597  739  874  880  750  728  7,386  -  $86  $68  $71  $103  $133  $113  $574  $107,583,227  $82  $63  $65  $100  $134  $112  $555  $104,042,095  -5.1%  -7.9%  -7.8%  -3.0%  0.7%  -1.2%  -3.3%  -3.3%  658  584  514  $97  526  527  $82  547  695  820  $85  961  $116  963  811  805  $145  $123  8,412  -  $647  $243,764,119  $91  $76  $79  $112  $146  $121  $625  $235,255,971  -5.6%  -7.6%  -7.2%  -3.1%  0.5%  -1.6%  -3.5%  -3.5%  9,705  -  761  677  597  608  617  636  804  956  1,107  1,107  925  906  $111  $94  $97  $133  $165  $138  $739  $235,040,193  $107  $88  $92  $132  $169  $138  $726  $230,880,026  -3.7% 841  -5.9% 751  666  $121  -5.6% 674  686  $104  -1.2% 710  868  1,048  $107  2.1% 1,220  $144  -0.1% 1,224  1,036  $182  1,001 $153  -1.8%  -1.8%  10,726  -  $812  $200,849,724  $118  $98  $102  $144  $187  $154  $803  $198,651,929  -3.1%  -5.4%  -4.9%  -0.6%  3.0%  0.8%  -1.1%  -1.1%  993  12,533  -  $141  880  786 $121  $125  $169  $209  $176  $940  $219,884,655  $140  $116  $121  $171  $218  $180  $945  $221,147,751  -1.2% 1,149  1,029  794  797  -3.6% 899  840  1,041  -3.2% 886  883  1,220  1,412  1.3% 929  1,197  1,412  1,185  4.4% 1,365  1,614  1,169  2.3% 1,618  1,344  1,344  0.6%  0.6%  14,258  -  $163  $135  $137  $190  $238  $199  $1,062  $143,364,051  $164  $132  $134  $195  $251  $206  $1,083  $146,140,106  0.6%  -2.5%  -2.1%  2.6%  5.7%  3.6%  1.9%  1.9%  2,956  Total Revenues Flat Rate  $1,156,606,202  Total Revenues RIB Rate  $1,142,627,135  Percentage Difference: Rib vs. Flat Analysis is based on statistically weighted data in BC Hydro’s 2006 Residential End-Use Study – among survey respondents who permitted account linkage – in combination with actual bill impact modelling. Note for percentage Difference RIB vs. Flat: The dollar amounts are rounded, but the percent differences are based on non-rounded bill impact values. Estimated total revenues under Flat and RIB rates are based on the estimated numbers of customers in the category multiplied by their estimated total fiscal year bills  -1.2%  BCUC IR 2.67.1 Attachment 1  $80,000 to under $120,000  Estimated Customers  Unweighted base size for impact modeling  Jason	
  Owen	
  	
    	
    September	
  14,	
  2010	
    In	
   its	
   final	
   argument	
   to	
   the	
   commission	
   in	
   the	
   RIB	
   hearing,	
   BC	
   Hydro	
   presented	
   this	
   analysis	
   as	
   evidence	
   that	
   the	
   proposed	
   RIB	
   rate	
   did	
   not	
   unduly	
   discriminate	
   against	
   any	
   specific	
   grouping	
   of	
   the	
   customer	
   base.	
   	
   While	
   conceding	
   that	
   some	
   of	
   the	
   customer	
   characterizations	
   may,	
   in	
   some	
   cases,	
   be	
   correlated	
   to	
   negative	
   bill	
   impacts,	
  these	
  relationships	
  are	
  not	
  determinative	
  or	
  strongly	
  predictive.	
  	
  Further,	
   BC	
   Hydro	
   asserted	
   that	
   the	
   only	
   truly	
   determinative	
   factor	
   in	
   bill	
   increases	
   is	
   consumption,	
   which	
   varies	
   across	
   the	
   customer	
   sub-­‐classes	
   (BC	
   Hydro,	
   2008b).	
  	
   While	
   this	
   may	
   be	
   true,	
   the	
   type	
   of	
   analysis	
   done	
   by	
   BC	
   Hydro,	
   using	
   average	
   monthly	
   electricity	
   consumption	
   for	
   each	
   of	
   the	
   customer	
   subclasses,	
   does	
   not	
   account	
   for	
   the	
   wide	
   range	
   of	
   consumption	
   levels	
   within	
   each	
   of	
   the	
   sub-­‐classes.	
  	
   The	
   average	
   consumption	
   of	
   the	
   lowest	
   income	
   group	
   in	
   the	
   household	
   income	
   analysis	
   is,	
   predictably,	
   quite	
   low.	
   	
   This	
   fails,	
   however,	
   to	
   account	
   for	
   the	
   large	
   consumers	
   within	
   this	
   group	
   who	
   have	
   little	
   or	
   no	
   control	
   over	
   their	
   level	
   of	
   consumption.	
  	
  	
   	
   For	
   each	
   of	
   the	
   customer	
   sub-­‐classes,	
   similar	
   results	
   were	
   presented	
   in	
   the	
   BC	
   Hydro	
   Bill	
   Impact	
   tables.	
   	
   In	
   each	
   case,	
   the	
   category	
   that	
   would	
   be	
   expected	
   to	
   consume	
   more	
   electricity	
   and	
   potentially	
   suffer	
   adverse	
   impacts,	
   such	
   as	
   those	
   with	
   single	
  detached	
  homes,	
  with	
  large	
  number	
  of	
  occupants,	
  located	
  in	
  harsher	
  regions	
   and	
  using	
  electricity	
  as	
  their	
  heating	
  source,	
  would	
  see	
  on	
  average	
  a	
  slightly	
  higher	
   bill	
  under	
  the	
  RIB	
  rate.	
  	
  However,	
  the	
  bill	
  impact	
  from	
  the	
  RIB	
  rate	
  did	
  not	
  exceed	
   $20	
   per	
   year	
   in	
   any	
   of	
   the	
   sub-­‐classes.	
   	
   As	
   with	
   the	
   table	
   showing	
   income	
   sub-­‐ classes,	
   the	
   remaining	
   tables	
   show	
   average	
   electricity	
   consumption	
   and	
   therefore	
   are	
   not	
   representative	
   of	
   the	
   minority	
   of	
   large	
   consumers	
   within	
   each	
   sub-­‐class.	
  	
   Further,	
   by	
   aggregating	
   the	
   data	
   into	
   distinct	
   sub-­‐classes,	
   customers	
   who	
   may	
   fall	
   into	
   multiple	
   high-­‐risk	
   sub-­‐class	
   categories,	
   such	
   as	
   low-­‐income,	
   large	
   family	
   and	
   electric	
  heating,	
  are	
  not	
  represented	
  by	
  the	
  data.	
   	
   Research	
   done	
   for	
   this	
   paper	
   includes	
   analysis	
   of	
   the	
   projected	
   bill	
   impacts	
   of	
   the	
   RIB	
   rate	
   compared	
   to	
   a	
   revenue-­‐equivalent	
   flat	
   rate	
   using	
   the	
   current	
   RIB	
   rate	
   parameters	
   and	
   up-­‐to-­‐date	
   consumption	
   data.	
   	
   Included	
   in	
   the	
   analysis	
   are	
   17	
    Jason	
  Owen	
  	
    	
    September	
  14,	
  2010	
    projections	
   for	
   future	
   RIB	
   rates	
   and	
   the	
   distributional	
   impacts	
   across	
   the	
   range	
   of	
   household	
  incomes.	
  	
  The	
  results	
  are	
  presented	
  in	
  section	
  3.8	
  below.	
  	
    3.7 Decision	
  from	
  Hearing	
   On	
   August	
   28,	
   2008	
   the	
   BCUC	
   concluded	
   that	
   the	
   implementation	
   of	
   BC	
   Hydro’s	
   proposed	
   RIB	
   Rate	
   would	
   be	
   in	
   the	
   public	
   interest	
   and	
   outlined	
   a	
   series	
   of	
   conditions	
  that,	
  if	
  met,	
  would	
  allow	
  the	
  RIB	
  rate	
  to	
  come	
  into	
  effect	
  as	
  of	
  October	
  1,	
   2008	
   (BCUC,	
   2008b).	
   	
   The	
   conditions	
   to	
   the	
   approval	
   included	
   minor	
   changes	
   to	
   the	
   basic	
   structure	
   of	
   the	
   RIB	
   rate	
   and	
   to	
   the	
   methodology	
   for	
   its	
   calculation.	
   	
   As	
   BC	
   Hydro	
   had	
   simultaneously	
   submitted	
   their	
   application	
   for	
   projected	
   revenue	
   requirements	
  for	
  the	
  2009	
  and	
  2010	
  fiscal	
  years,	
  the	
  requirements	
  for	
  the	
  RIB	
  rates	
   were	
   determined	
   to	
   correspond	
   with	
   this	
   time	
   period.	
   	
   Future	
   adjustments	
   to	
   the	
   RIB	
   rate	
   beyond	
   the	
   2010	
   fiscal	
   year	
   (ie.	
   April	
   1,	
   2010)	
   would	
   be	
   dealt	
   with	
   in	
   subsequent	
  applications.	
   	
  	
   In	
   its	
   decision,	
   the	
   Commission	
   considered	
   the	
   proportion	
   of	
   revenue	
   that	
   would	
   be	
   collected	
  by	
  each	
  of	
  the	
  step	
  1	
  and	
  2	
  rates	
  based	
  on	
  the	
  proposed	
  rate	
  structure	
  and	
   projected	
  increases	
  to	
  the	
  revenue	
  requirement.	
  	
  Drawing	
  on	
  submissions	
  from	
  BC	
   Hydro,	
  the	
  Commission	
  noted	
  that	
  there	
  would	
  be	
  a	
  cumulative	
  increase	
  of	
  59%	
  in	
   the	
   revenue	
   requirement	
   over	
   the	
   next	
   10	
   years	
   and	
   the	
   step	
   1	
   and	
   step	
   2	
   rates	
   would	
   increase	
   by	
   23%	
   and	
   135%,	
   respectively.	
   	
   The	
   commission	
   considered	
   the	
   dramatically	
  uneven	
  price	
  signals	
  that	
  would	
  result	
  for	
  customers	
  above	
  and	
  below	
   the	
  step	
  2	
  threshold	
  to	
  be	
  “unjust	
  and	
  unreasonable”	
  (BCUC,	
  2008b).	
  	
  	
   	
   Favoring	
  a	
  price	
  structure	
  that	
  would	
  send	
  more	
  balanced	
  price	
  signals	
  in	
  both	
  the	
   step	
  1	
  and	
  2	
  rates,	
  the	
  commission	
  found	
  that	
  a	
  reasonable	
  cap	
  ought	
  to	
  be	
  set	
  for	
   the	
   step	
   2	
   rate	
   for	
   the	
   F2009	
   and	
   F2010	
   periods.	
   	
   It	
   was	
   determined	
   that	
   the	
   cap	
   ought	
   to	
   reflect	
   the	
   incremental	
   cost	
   of	
   new	
   supply	
   including	
   transmission	
   losses.	
  	
   As	
   such,	
   the	
   BCUC	
   decided	
   that	
   the	
   previous	
   flat	
   rate	
   would	
   be	
   increased	
   in	
   equal	
   increments	
   to	
   a	
   step	
   2	
   cap	
   of	
   8.27	
   cents/kWh	
   for	
   the	
   F2009	
   and	
   F2010	
   periods.	
  	
   This	
  was	
  the	
  established	
  “Long	
  Run	
  Marginal	
  Costs”	
  based	
  on	
  figures	
  presented	
  in	
    18	
    Jason	
  Owen	
  	
    	
    September	
  14,	
  2010	
    the	
  F2006	
  call	
  for	
  tenders	
  (BCUC,	
  2008b).	
  	
  It	
  was	
  determined	
  that	
  beyond	
  the	
  F2010	
   period,	
   increases	
   in	
   the	
   step	
   2	
   cap	
   rate	
   would	
   have	
   to	
   be	
   reviewed	
   in	
   a	
   separate	
   application.	
   	
   With	
  respect	
  to	
  the	
  proposed	
  step	
  2	
  threshold	
  of	
  1,600	
  kWh	
  per	
  bi-­‐monthly	
  billing	
   period,	
   the	
   Commission	
   took	
   issue	
   with	
   the	
   lack	
   of	
   theoretical	
   basis	
   for	
   this	
   number	
   and	
   stated	
   that,	
   using	
   this	
   threshold,	
   close	
   to	
   40%	
   of	
   customers	
   would	
   never	
   be	
   billed	
  at	
  the	
  step	
  2	
  rate.	
  	
  This	
  was	
  considered	
  to	
  be	
  in	
  contradiction	
  with	
  the	
  second	
   economic	
   efficiency	
   test	
   of	
   maximizing	
   the	
   number	
   of	
   customers	
   that	
   would	
   be	
   subjected	
   to	
   the	
   step	
   2	
   rate.	
   Instead,	
   the	
   Commission	
   recommended	
   that	
   after	
   removing	
  the	
  high	
  and	
  low	
  energy	
  consuming	
  outliers,	
  a	
  step	
  2	
  threshold	
  equal	
  to	
   90%	
   of	
   the	
   median	
   consumption	
   would	
   result	
   in	
   a	
   more	
   fair	
   and	
   reasonable	
   structure	
  (BCUC,	
  2008b).	
  	
   	
   Throughout	
  the	
  RIB	
  hearing,	
  calls	
  were	
  made	
  from	
  interveners,	
  namely	
  the	
  British	
   Columbia	
  Old	
  Age	
  Pensioners	
  Organization	
  (BCOAPO),	
  to	
  implement	
  a	
  differentiated	
   rate	
   for	
   low-­‐income	
   customers.	
   	
   The	
   BCOAPO	
   suggested	
   that	
   a	
   discrete	
   rate	
   class	
   could	
   be	
   created	
   for	
   low-­‐income	
   residential	
   customers	
   that	
   would	
   provide	
   relief	
   for	
   those	
   with	
   difficulty	
   affording	
   essential	
   household	
   energy	
   services	
   (BCUC,	
   2008b).	
  	
   As	
  summarized	
  in	
  the	
  Reasons	
  for	
  Decisions:	
   	
   “BCAOPO	
  submits	
  that	
  a	
  policy	
  based	
  measure	
  which	
  takes	
  account	
  of	
  the	
   disparate	
   circumstances	
   of	
   customers,	
   and	
   of	
   their	
   differing	
   ability	
   to	
   afford	
   essential	
   household	
   energy	
   services,	
   is	
   an	
   example	
   of	
   appropriate	
   purposive	
  discrimination	
  and	
  is	
  not	
  “undue”	
  within	
  the	
  meaning	
  of	
  the	
  UCA.	
   Conversely,	
   BCOAPO	
   argues	
   that	
   a	
   rate	
   which	
   bars	
   access	
   to	
   sufficient	
   household	
  energy	
  to	
  provide	
  comfort	
  and	
  safety,	
  on	
  the	
  basis	
  of	
  household	
   income,	
  results	
  in	
  an	
  “undue	
  disadvantage”	
  (BCUC,	
  2008b).”	
   	
   Concerning	
  segmentation	
  of	
  the	
  residential	
  customers	
  into	
  a	
  low-­‐income	
  rate	
  class	
   or	
  directed	
  relief	
  for	
  low-­‐income	
  customers,	
  the	
  Commission	
  found	
  that	
  there	
  was	
   19	
    Jason	
  Owen	
  	
    	
    September	
  14,	
  2010	
    not	
   sufficient	
   evidence	
   to	
   show	
   that	
   a	
   large	
   enough	
   proportion	
   of	
   low-­‐income	
   customers	
  would	
  be	
  worse	
  off	
  under	
  then	
  RIB	
  to	
  warrant	
  such	
  policy	
  actions	
  (BCUC,	
   2008b).	
  	
  Further,	
  the	
  Commission	
  stated	
  that	
  it	
  was	
  not	
  its	
  role	
  to	
  make	
  decisions	
  of	
   a	
  socio-­‐political	
  nature,	
  rather	
  this	
  was	
  a	
  task	
  for	
  elected	
  legislators.	
  	
  Ultimately,	
  the	
   Commission	
  did	
  not	
  want	
  to	
  set	
  a	
  precedent	
  of	
  allocating	
  resources	
  on	
  the	
  “basis	
  of	
   social	
  worth.”	
    3.8 Distributional	
  Impacts	
  of	
  RIB:	
  Household	
  Income	
   Research	
   for	
   this	
   paper	
   included	
   carrying	
   out	
   detailed	
   and	
   probing	
   analysis	
   of	
   available	
  energy	
  use	
  and	
  income	
  data	
  to	
  determine	
  whether	
  the	
  current	
  model	
  for	
   the	
  RIB	
  rate	
  imposes	
  adverse	
  impacts	
  on	
  low	
  income	
  customers	
  and	
  whether	
  these	
   impacts	
  may	
  be	
  exacerbated	
  over	
  time	
  with	
  increases	
  to	
  the	
  revenue	
  requirement.	
  	
  	
   	
   This	
   research	
   collected	
   data	
   from	
   the	
   Natural	
   Resources	
   Canada	
   (NRCan)	
   2007	
   Survey	
   of	
   Household	
   Energy	
   Use.	
   	
   It	
   is	
   useful	
   to	
   begin	
   by	
   looking	
   at	
   the	
   average	
   electricity	
  consumption	
  among	
  the	
  5	
  household	
  income	
  groupings,	
  as	
  aggregated	
  by	
   NRCan,	
  shown	
  in	
  the	
  figure	
  below.	
   	
   	
   	
   	
   	
   	
   	
   	
   	
   	
    20	
    Jason	
  Owen	
  	
    	
    September	
  14,	
  2010	
    Figure	
  4	
  -­	
  Average	
  Annual	
  Electricity	
  Consumption	
  vs.	
  Household	
  Income	
  -­	
  British	
   Columbia5	
    Annual	
  Consumption	
  (kWh)	
    16,000	
   14,000	
   12,000	
   10,000	
   8,000	
   6,000	
   4,000	
   2,000	
   0	
   <	
  $20,000	
   $20,000	
  -­‐	
   $40,000	
  -­‐	
   $60,000	
  -­‐	
   $80,000	
  -­‐	
   $100,000	
  -­‐	
   >	
   $40,000	
   $60,000	
   $80,000	
   $100,000	
   $150,000	
   $150,000	
   Household	
  Pre-­Tax	
  Income	
  ($)	
    	
   	
   From	
   the	
   figure	
   above	
   it	
   can	
   be	
   seen	
   that	
   electricity	
   consumption	
   appears	
   to	
   be	
   correlated	
  with	
  household	
  income.	
  	
  This	
  is	
  also	
  the	
  case	
  when	
  total	
  annual	
  energy	
   consumption	
  is	
  plotted	
  against	
  the	
  same	
  household	
  income	
  groups.	
  	
  When	
  assessing	
   the	
   distributional	
   impacts	
   of	
   electricity	
   pricing,	
   it	
   is	
   important	
   to	
   also	
   note	
   the	
   amount	
   of	
   electricity	
   consumed	
   as	
   it	
   relates	
   to	
   total	
   energy	
   use.	
   	
   The	
   table	
   below	
   shows	
  the	
  percentage	
  of	
  the	
  total	
  annual	
  energy	
  consumption	
  that	
  is	
  represented	
  by	
   electricity	
  use.	
  	
  	
   	
   	
   	
   	
   	
   	
    	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
   5	
  Data	
  extracted	
  from:	
  NRCan.	
  (2007).	
  2007	
  Survey	
  of	
  Household	
  Energy	
  Use.	
  Retrieved	
  May	
  20,	
  2010,	
    from	
  Natural	
  Resources	
  Canada	
  Website:	
   http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/corporate/statistics/neud/dpa/data_e/sheu07/tables.cfm?attr=0	
    21	
    Jason	
  Owen	
  	
    	
    September	
  14,	
  2010	
    Table	
  2	
  -­	
  Average	
  Annual	
  Energy	
  and	
  Electricity	
  Use	
  by	
  Income	
  Group	
  -­	
  BC6	
   Household	
  Income	
   (thousands	
  of	
  $)	
   <	
  20	
   20	
  -­‐	
  40	
   40	
  -­‐	
  60	
   60	
  -­‐	
  80	
   80	
  -­‐	
  100	
   100	
  -­‐150	
   >	
  150	
    Average	
   Annual	
   Energy*	
  (kWh)	
   20,120	
   23,941	
   28,676	
   25,208	
   27,022	
   31,768	
   36,774	
    Average	
   Annual	
   Electricity	
  (kWh)	
   6,801	
   9,136	
   9,414	
   9,067	
   10,828	
   11,273	
   14,713	
    %	
  Electricity	
   34%	
   38%	
   33%	
   36%	
   40%	
   35%	
   40%	
    *	
  Energy	
  includes	
  electricity,	
  natural	
  gas,	
  heating	
  oil,	
  propane	
  and	
  wood.	
    	
    For	
  the	
  lowest	
  income	
  group,	
  on	
  average	
  about	
  one	
  third	
  of	
  all	
  energy	
  consumed	
  is	
   in	
  the	
  form	
  of	
  electricity.	
  This	
  is	
  fairly	
  consistent	
  across	
  all	
  income	
  groups.	
  	
   	
   In	
   order	
   to	
   conduct	
   an	
   analysis	
   of	
   the	
   average	
   bill	
   impact	
   of	
   the	
   RIB	
   rate,	
   it	
   was	
   necessary	
   to	
   distribute	
   the	
   average	
   annual	
   electricity	
   consumption,	
   presented	
   above,	
   for	
   each	
   income	
   group	
   over	
   the	
   twelve	
   months	
   of	
   the	
   year.	
   	
   To	
   do	
   this,	
   the	
   annual	
   patterns	
   of	
   electricity	
   consumption	
   from	
   BC	
   Hydro’s	
   bill	
   impact	
   analysis	
   were	
  applied	
  to	
  the	
  NRCan	
  data.	
  	
  The	
  first	
  step	
  in	
  this	
  process	
  was	
  to	
  calculate	
  the	
   annual	
   average	
   for	
   each	
   income	
   group	
   from	
   BC	
   Hydro’s	
   monthly	
   data	
   and	
   then	
   calculate	
  the	
  ratio	
  of	
  monthly	
  total	
  to	
  annual	
  average	
  for	
  each	
  month.	
  	
  The	
  annual	
   average	
  from	
  the	
  NRCan	
  data	
  was	
  then	
  multiplied	
  by	
  this	
  ratio	
  for	
  each	
  month	
  of	
  the	
   year.	
  	
  	
   	
   Once	
   the	
   monthly	
   electricity	
   consumption	
   values	
   were	
   calculated,	
   the	
   bi-­‐monthly	
   bill	
  impacts	
  could	
  be	
  assessed	
  across	
  a	
  range	
  of	
  pricing	
  structures.	
  	
  As	
  such,	
  the	
  bi-­‐ monthly	
   and	
   annual	
   bill	
   impacts	
   from	
   both	
   the	
   proposed	
   RIB	
   rates	
   and	
   revenue	
   equivalent	
  flat	
  rates	
  for	
  fiscal	
  years	
  2009	
  and	
  2010	
  (shown	
  below)	
  were	
  compared	
   for	
   each	
   of	
   the	
   seven	
   household	
   income	
   groups.	
   	
   The	
   table	
   below	
   shows	
   the	
   RIB	
   rates	
   and	
   revenue	
   equivalent	
   flat	
   rates	
   for	
   the	
   period	
   beginning	
   in	
   October	
   2008,	
   	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
   6	
  Data	
  extracted	
  from:	
  Statistics	
  Canada.	
  (2008).	
  Report	
  on	
  Energy	
  Supply	
  and	
  Demand	
  in	
  Canada.	
    Retrieved	
  June	
  1,	
  2010,	
  from	
  http://www.statcan.gc.ca:	
  http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/57-­‐003-­‐ x/57-­‐003-­‐x2008000-­‐eng.pdf	
    22	
    Jason	
  Owen	
  	
    	
    September	
  14,	
  2010	
    when	
   the	
   RIB	
   rate	
   was	
   first	
   implemented,	
   to	
   present	
   based	
   on	
   the	
   approved	
   BC	
   Hydro	
  RIB	
  and	
  RRA	
  applications.	
   	
   Table	
  3	
  -­	
  RIB	
  Rate	
  and	
  Revenue	
  Equivalent	
  Flat	
  Rate7	
   	
   F2009	
   F2009	
  -­	
  RIB	
   F2010	
  -­	
  RIB	
   Date	
  Implemented	
   April	
  1,	
  2008	
   October	
  1,	
  2008	
   April	
  1,	
  2009	
   Bi-­‐Monthly	
   	
   1,350	
   1,350	
   Threshold	
  (kWh)	
   Rates	
  (cents)	
   Basic	
  Charge	
   	
   12.38	
  per	
  day	
   12.64	
  per	
  day	
   Step	
  1	
  (per	
  kWh)	
   	
   5.98	
   5.91	
   Step	
  2	
  (per	
  kWh)	
   	
   7.21	
   8.27	
   	
   Basic	
  Charge	
   12.13	
  per	
  day	
   12.93	
  per	
  day*	
   13.99	
  per	
  day*	
   Flat	
  Rate	
  (per	
  kWh)	
   6.15	
   6.55*	
   7.09*	
   *	
  Revenue	
  equivalent	
  flat	
  rate	
  as	
  presented	
  in	
  the	
  F09/F10	
  RRA	
    F2011	
  -­	
  RIB	
   April	
  1,	
  2010	
   1,350	
   13.41	
  per	
  day	
   6.27	
   8.78	
   	
   	
    	
   The	
  bill	
  impact	
  analysis	
  conducted	
  for	
  this	
  paper	
  is	
  based	
  on	
  the	
  RIB	
  and	
  flat	
  rates	
   shown	
  above	
  and	
  yielded	
  similar	
  results	
  to	
  the	
  BC	
  Hydro	
  analysis.	
  	
  With	
  respect	
  to	
   the	
  lowest	
  household	
  income	
  group,	
  the	
  average	
  bi-­‐monthly	
  electricity	
  consumption	
   (1,134	
   kWh)	
   is	
   well	
   below	
   the	
   1,350	
   kWh	
   bi-­‐monthly	
   threshold.	
   	
   Only	
   in	
   the	
   mid-­‐ winter	
   months	
   (December	
   to	
   April)	
   does	
   the	
   average	
   consumption	
   in	
   this	
   group	
   exceed	
  the	
  step-­‐2	
  threshold.	
  	
  For	
  those	
  groups	
  including	
  household	
  income	
  greater	
   than	
  $80,000,	
  the	
  step-­‐2	
  threshold	
  is	
  exceeded	
  in	
  each	
  bi-­‐monthly	
  billing	
  period.	
   	
   For	
  the	
  two	
  fiscal	
  years	
  (F2009	
  and	
  F2010)	
  with	
  available	
  revenue	
  equivalent	
  flat-­‐ rates	
  to	
  compare	
  with	
  the	
  RIB	
  rate,	
  the	
  RIB	
  rate	
  actually	
  results	
  in	
  annual	
  savings.	
  	
   This	
   may	
   lead	
   readers	
   to	
   believe	
   that	
   the	
   structure	
   of	
   the	
   RIB	
   rate	
   has	
   not	
   been	
   designed	
   to	
   recover	
   the	
   required	
   revenue	
   as	
   approved	
   by	
   BCUC.	
   This	
   points	
   to	
   a	
   major	
   flaw	
   in	
   this	
   type	
   of	
   analysis:	
   average	
   consumption	
   is	
   used	
   for	
   each	
   of	
   the	
   household	
  income	
  groups.	
  	
  	
   	
   	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
   7	
  Data	
  extracted	
  from:	
  BCUC.	
  (2008).	
  BC	
  Hydro	
  and	
  Power	
  Authority	
  F2009	
  and	
  F2010	
  Revenue	
    Requirements	
  Decision.	
  Retrieved	
  June	
  20,	
  2010,	
  from	
  BC	
  Hydro	
  Website:	
   http://www.bchydro.com/etc/medialib/internet/documents/planning_regulatory/rev_req/rra_f09_ f10_decision_and_errata.Par.0001.File.rra_f09_f10_decision_and_errata.pdf	
    23	
    Jason	
  Owen	
  	
    	
    September	
  14,	
  2010	
    As	
  stated	
  by	
  BC	
  Hydro	
  in	
  their	
  final	
  arguments	
  for	
  the	
  RIB	
  Hearing,	
  there	
  is	
  a	
  wide	
   range	
   of	
   consumption	
   levels	
   within	
   each	
   of	
   the	
   customer	
   sub-­‐classes.	
   	
   By	
   only	
   presenting	
   the	
   average	
   consumption	
   for	
   each	
   of	
   the	
   sub-­‐classes	
   (and	
   sub-­‐sub-­‐ classes,	
   eg.	
   household	
   income	
   groups),	
   the	
   largest	
   consumers,	
   those	
   that	
   are	
   most	
   likely	
  to	
  be	
  hit	
  the	
  hardest	
  by	
  the	
  step	
  2	
  rate,	
  do	
  not	
  emerge	
  in	
  the	
  data	
  analysis.	
  	
  	
   	
   During	
   the	
   RIB	
   Hearing,	
   council	
   for	
   the	
   BCOAPO	
   commented	
   on	
   the	
   population	
   of	
   low-­‐income	
   customers	
   that	
   consume	
   more	
   electricity	
   than	
   the	
   average	
   for	
   their	
   income	
   group.	
   They	
   suggested	
   that	
   while	
   the	
   numbers	
   may	
   be	
   relatively	
   small	
   currently,	
   the	
   trend	
   of	
   increasing	
   prices	
   over	
   the	
   next	
   few	
   years	
   will	
   likely	
   force	
   more	
  households	
  into	
  this	
  category	
  (The	
  British	
  Columbia	
  Public	
  Interest	
  Advocacy	
   Centre,	
  2008).	
  	
  Disaggregated	
  customer	
  data	
  was	
  not	
  available	
  for	
  this	
  research	
  to	
   assess	
  the	
  impacts	
  on	
  the	
  largest	
  consumers	
  among	
  the	
  lowest	
  income	
  group.	
  	
  Using	
   projected	
   revenue	
   requirements	
   and	
   respective	
   RIB	
   rates	
   provided	
   in	
   BC	
   Hydro’s	
   2007	
   Load	
   Forecast	
   (2008	
   LTAP),	
   this	
   research	
   extrapolated	
   the	
   future	
   impact	
   of	
   the	
   RIB	
   on	
   the	
   lowest	
   income	
   group	
   based	
   on	
   current	
   rates	
   of	
   consumption.	
   	
   The	
   following	
  table	
  was	
  extracted	
  from	
  BC	
  Hydro’s	
  response	
  to	
  a	
  request	
  for	
  information	
   during	
  the	
  RIB	
  Hearing	
  and	
  provides	
  the	
  assumed	
  RIB	
  rate	
  increases	
  as	
  a	
  result	
  of	
   the	
  projected	
  future	
  revenue	
  requirements	
  from	
  the	
  2008	
  LTAP.	
   	
   	
   	
   	
   	
   	
   	
   	
   	
    24	
    Jason	
  Owen	
  	
    	
    September	
  14,	
  2010	
    Table	
  4	
  -­	
  Future	
  RIB	
  Price	
  Increases8	
    	
   	
   This	
  research	
  calculated	
  the	
  bill	
  impacts	
  for	
  F2012	
  to	
  F2018	
  using	
  the	
  projected	
  RIB	
   rate	
   prices	
   in	
   Table	
   4	
   and	
   the	
   current	
   consumption	
   rates	
   for	
   each	
   of	
   the	
   income	
   groups.	
   	
   Since	
   the	
   revenue	
   equivalent	
   flat	
   rates	
   were	
   not	
   available	
   for	
   these	
   estimates,	
   it	
   is	
   useful	
   to	
   compare	
   the	
   percentage	
   of	
   total	
   income	
   consumed	
   by	
   the	
   electricity	
   bill	
   for	
   each	
   of	
   the	
   income	
   groups	
   moving	
   into	
   the	
   future.	
   	
   The	
   figure	
   below	
   presents	
   this	
   analysis	
   using	
   total	
   pre-­‐tax	
   income	
   estimates,	
   in	
   2010	
   dollars,	
   for	
  the	
  top	
  and	
  bottom	
  two	
  income	
  groups.	
  	
  This	
  research	
  assigned	
  the	
  average	
  total	
   income	
   for	
   the	
   lowest	
   income	
   group	
   based	
   on	
   the	
   figure	
   for	
   the	
   lowest	
   income	
   quintile	
  from	
  the	
  2008	
  report	
  on	
  Income	
  in	
  Canada(Statistics	
  Canada,	
  2010).	
  	
  Total	
   income	
   for	
   the	
   other	
   income	
   groups	
   was	
   estimated	
   as	
   the	
   midpoint	
   between	
   the	
   income	
  range	
  for	
  each	
  group.	
  	
   	
    	
   	
    	
   	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
   8	
  Table	
  extracted	
  from:	
  BC	
  Hydro.	
  (2008).	
  2008	
  Long-­Term	
  Acquisition	
  Plan	
  Application.	
  Retrieved	
    July	
  5,	
  2010,	
  from	
  BC	
  Hydro	
  Website:	
   http://www.bchydro.com/etc/medialib/internet/documents/planning_regulatory/iep_ltap/2008_lt ap_application.Par.0001.File.2008_ltap_application.pdf	
    25	
    Jason	
  Owen	
  	
    	
    September	
  14,	
  2010	
    Figure	
  5	
  -­	
  Percent	
  of	
  Total	
  Income	
  Spent	
  on	
  Electricity	
  for	
  Top	
  and	
  Bottom	
  Two	
  Income	
   Groups	
   7%	
   <	
  20k	
   Percent	
  of	
  Total	
  Income	
    6%	
   5%	
    20k	
  -­‐	
  40k	
   >	
  150k	
    4%	
   3%	
   2%	
   1%	
   0%	
   F2012	
    F2013	
    F2014	
    F2015	
    F2016	
    F2017	
    F2018	
    	
    It	
   should	
   be	
   noted	
   that	
   electricity	
   only	
   accounts	
   for	
   about	
   1/3	
   of	
   total	
   energy	
   consumption	
   in	
   the	
   case	
   of	
   the	
   lowest	
   income	
   group	
   and	
   40%	
   in	
   the	
   case	
   of	
   the	
   highest	
  income	
  group.	
  	
  This	
  suggests	
  that	
  by	
  2018	
  the	
  average	
  cost	
  of	
  energy	
  for	
  the	
   lowest	
  income	
  group	
  could	
  be	
  upwards	
  of	
  17%	
  of	
  their	
  total	
  income,	
  assuming	
  that	
   natural	
  gas	
  and	
  other	
  fuel	
  types	
  will	
  be	
  more	
  or	
  less	
  equivalent	
  in	
  price	
  to	
  electricity	
   by	
  2018.	
  	
  This	
  analysis	
  does	
  not	
  account	
  for	
  overall	
  increases	
  in	
  income	
  over	
  time	
   due	
  to	
  inflation	
  or	
  reduced	
  consumption	
  from	
  conservation.	
  	
  	
   	
   For	
  a	
  more	
  conservative	
  estimate	
  that	
  incorporates	
  growth	
  in	
  income	
  over	
  time,	
  the	
   figure	
   below	
   presents	
   the	
   same	
   analysis	
   adjusted	
   for	
   income	
   growth.	
   	
   In	
   the	
   2008	
   Statistics	
   Canada	
   report	
   on	
   Income	
   in	
   Canada	
   average	
   total	
   income	
   is	
   tabulated	
   based	
   on	
   income	
   quintiles	
   between	
   1998	
   and	
   2008.	
   	
   Using	
   the	
   average	
   annual	
   percent	
   growth	
   in	
   income	
   for	
   this	
   period,	
   this	
   research	
   forecasted	
   income	
   growth	
   rates	
   for	
   each	
   of	
   the	
   income	
   groups,	
   which	
   were	
   adjusted	
   accordingly	
   for	
   annual	
   growth.	
  	
  	
   	
   	
   	
   	
   	
    26	
    Jason	
  Owen	
  	
    	
    September	
  14,	
  2010	
    Figure	
  6	
  -­	
  Percent	
  of	
  Total	
  Income	
  Spent	
  on	
  Electricity	
  for	
  Top	
  and	
  Bottom	
  Two	
  Income	
   Groups	
  (income	
  adjusted	
  for	
  annual	
  growth)	
    Percent	
  of	
  Total	
  Income	
    6%	
   5%	
    <	
  20k	
   20k	
  -­‐	
  40k	
   >	
  150k	
    4%	
   3%	
   2%	
   1%	
   0%	
   F2012	
    F2013	
    F2014	
    F2015	
    F2016	
    F2017	
    F2018	
    	
    3.9 Impact	
  of	
  RIB	
  Rate	
  on	
  Low	
  Income	
  Customers	
   Conceptually,	
   the	
   goals	
   of	
   the	
   RIB	
   rate,	
   and	
   conservation	
   pricing	
   in	
   general,	
   are	
   sound:	
  as	
  the	
  cost	
  of	
  energy	
  increases,	
  so	
  does	
  the	
  incentive	
  to	
  conserve.	
  	
  The	
  cost	
  to	
   provide	
   incremental	
   new	
   supply	
   of	
   electricity	
   through	
   network	
   expansion,	
   run-­‐of-­‐ the-­‐river	
   hydro,	
   or	
   other	
   renewable	
   sources	
   of	
   energy	
   is	
   much	
   greater	
   than	
   the	
   embedded	
   cost	
   of	
   the	
   existing	
   assets	
   in	
   this	
   province.	
   	
   As	
   an	
   electricity	
   utility,	
   BC	
   Hydro	
   cannot	
   operate	
   at	
   a	
   loss	
   and	
   therefore	
   needs	
   to	
   meet	
   required	
   revenue	
   targets.	
   	
   Both	
   fiscal	
   responsibility	
   and	
   energy	
   conservation	
   objectives	
   can	
   be	
   met	
   by	
   increased	
   rates	
   with	
   a	
   billing	
   structure	
   that	
   sends	
   a	
   price	
   signal	
   to	
   large	
   consumers.	
  	
   The	
  challenge	
  is	
  doing	
  this	
  in	
  such	
  a	
  way	
  that	
  the	
  threat	
  of	
  energy	
  poverty	
  on	
  low-­‐ income	
  customers	
  is	
  not	
  exacerbated.	
  	
  	
   	
   In	
   Affordable	
   Energy:	
   Diversifying	
   DSM	
   Programs	
   in	
   BC,	
   Liz	
   Kelly	
   presented	
   data	
   showing	
   that	
   upwards	
   of	
   270,000	
   (approximately	
   18%)	
   households	
   in	
   BC	
   spend	
   more	
  than	
  40%	
  of	
  household	
  income	
  on	
  “major	
  payments”	
  which	
  include	
  the	
  costs	
   of	
   rent	
   or	
   mortgage,	
   energy,	
   water	
   and	
   other	
   municipal	
   services.	
   	
   From	
   this,	
   it	
   is	
   deduced	
  that	
  these	
  households	
  likely	
  spend	
  10%	
  or	
  more	
  of	
  their	
  after-­‐tax	
  income	
   on	
  energy	
  and	
  are	
  therefore	
  considered	
  energy	
  poor	
  (Kelly,	
  2007).	
  	
  	
   	
    27	
    Jason	
  Owen	
  	
    	
    September	
  14,	
  2010	
    Based	
   on	
   BC	
   Hydro’s	
   bill	
   impact	
   analysis	
   and	
   further	
   analysis	
   done	
   for	
   this	
   paper,	
   the	
   RIB	
   rate	
   likely	
   does	
   not	
   have	
   a	
   disproportionately	
   adverse	
   impact	
   on	
   the	
   average	
   low-­‐income	
   customer.	
   	
   There	
   is,	
   however,	
   in	
   all	
   likelihood	
   a	
   certain	
   portion	
   of	
   customers	
   who	
   consume	
   more	
   than	
   the	
   average	
   amount	
   of	
   electricity	
   for	
   their	
   income	
   group	
   and	
   are	
   in	
   energy	
   poverty	
   or	
   at	
   risk	
   of	
   becoming	
   so.	
   	
   In	
   these	
   cases,	
   it	
   is	
  possible	
  that	
  the	
  RIB	
  rate	
  could	
  have	
  an	
  adverse	
  affect	
  on	
  top	
  of	
  increasing	
  rates	
   in	
   a	
   flat	
   rate	
   scenario.	
   	
   A	
   more	
   detailed	
   analysis	
   on	
   disaggregated	
   customer	
   data	
   would	
   be	
   required	
   to	
   confirm	
   this	
   fact	
   and	
   provide	
   recommendations	
   for	
   alleviating	
   the	
  hardship.	
  	
  	
   	
   Another	
  potential	
  impact	
  of	
  increasing	
  prices	
  for	
  electricity	
  and	
  implementation	
  of	
   the	
  RIB	
  rate	
  could	
  be	
  that	
  customers	
  with	
  the	
  means	
  to	
  upgrade	
  space	
  heating	
  and	
   hot	
   water	
   equipment	
   may	
   choose	
   to	
   use	
   less	
   expensive	
   natural	
   gas	
   as	
   the	
   fuel.	
  	
   Based	
   on	
   the	
   average	
   consumption	
   in	
   the	
   Lower	
   Mainland,	
   the	
   total	
   billed	
   cost	
   of	
   natural	
  gas	
  is	
  approximately	
  4	
  cents	
  per	
  kWh	
  of	
  energy	
  (Terasen	
  Gas,	
  2010).	
  	
  This	
   compares	
   to	
   7	
   cents	
   per	
   kWh	
   for	
   electricity,	
   based	
   on	
   average	
   consumption	
   in	
   BC	
   billed	
  at	
  the	
  2010	
  RIB	
  Rate9.	
  	
  The	
  potential	
  incentive	
  to	
  switch	
  from	
  hydro	
  electricity	
   to	
   burning	
   of	
   a	
   fossil	
   fuel	
   created	
   by	
   this	
   price	
   discrepancy	
   is	
   certainly	
   not	
   in	
   line	
   with	
  the	
  province’s	
  GHG	
  reduction	
  and	
  clean	
  air	
  targets.	
  	
  However,	
  this	
  is	
  probably	
   more	
  an	
  issue	
  of	
  the	
  price	
  of	
  natural	
  gas	
  not	
  reflecting	
  its	
  true	
  environmental	
  costs.	
  	
   Price	
  increases	
  due	
  to	
  diminishing	
  supply	
  and	
  stricter	
  regulations	
  in	
  the	
  oil	
  and	
  gas	
   industry	
   could	
   bring	
   the	
   price	
   of	
   electricity	
   and	
   gas	
   closer	
   together	
   in	
   the	
   near	
   future.	
   	
   After	
   reviewing	
   the	
   projected	
   BC	
   Hydro	
   revenue	
   requirements	
   moving	
   into	
   the	
   future,	
   it	
   appears	
   that	
   the	
   impact	
   of	
   energy	
   costs	
   on	
   the	
   average	
   low-­‐income	
   customer	
  will	
  be	
  amplified	
  with	
  increased	
  rates	
  and	
  possibly	
  more	
  hydro	
  customers	
   will	
   fall	
   into	
   the	
   energy	
   poor	
   category.	
   	
   With	
   the	
   existing	
   RIB	
   rate	
   structure,	
   there	
   is	
   little	
   that	
   can	
   be	
   done	
   to	
   lessen	
   the	
   impact	
   of	
   increasing	
   costs	
   for	
   electricity	
   on	
   low-­‐ 	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
   9	
  Based	
  on	
  calculation	
  from	
  RIB	
  impact	
  analysis	
  conducted	
  for	
  this	
  paper.	
    28	
    Jason	
  Owen	
  	
    	
    September	
  14,	
  2010	
    income	
   customers	
   through	
   broad	
   scope	
   policies.	
   	
   The	
   calls	
   from	
   BCOAPO	
   for	
   establishing	
   a	
   low-­‐income	
   rate	
   class	
   seem	
   viable	
   but	
   are	
   unfavorable	
   to	
   BCUC	
   and	
   BC	
  Hydro	
  due	
  to	
  their	
  reluctance	
  to	
  engage	
  in	
  social	
  policy	
  as	
  described	
  above.	
  	
  This	
   points	
  to	
  a	
  major	
  barrier	
  to	
  policy	
  tools	
  that	
  could	
  potentially	
  address	
  the	
  burden	
  of	
   energy	
   costs	
   on	
   low-­‐income	
   customers:	
   the	
   unwillingness	
   of	
   the	
   BCUC	
   to	
   consider	
   social	
  policy	
  objectives	
  as	
  part	
  of	
  its	
  mandate.	
  	
   	
   A	
   price	
   structure	
   that	
   places	
   too	
   much	
   of	
   the	
   cost	
   burden	
   on	
   high	
   consuming	
   residential	
   customers	
   is	
   considered	
   to	
   be	
   “unjust	
   and	
   unreasonable”	
   (BCUC,	
   2008b)	
   by	
   the	
   BCUC.	
   	
   Given	
   the	
   correlation	
   between	
   income	
   and	
   energy	
   consumption	
   and	
   the	
  fact	
  that	
  such	
  a	
  large	
  proportion	
  of	
  residential	
  demand	
  comes	
  from	
  the	
  highest	
   electricity	
   consuming	
   quintile	
   (44%	
   of	
   total),	
   it	
   seems	
   fair	
   that	
   this	
   group	
   be	
   impacted	
  the	
  most.	
  	
  The	
  common	
  trend	
  in	
  North	
  America	
  towards	
  larger	
  homes	
  and	
   thus	
  more	
  ft2	
  per	
  capita	
  is	
  likely	
  a	
  factor	
  in	
  increased	
  energy	
  use	
  among	
  the	
  higher	
   income	
  groups.	
  	
  A	
  third	
  tier	
  in	
  the	
  RIB	
  rate	
  could	
  be	
  an	
  effective	
  method	
  of	
  holding	
   those	
   who	
   consume	
   excessive	
   amounts	
   of	
   electricity	
   accountable	
   through	
   higher	
   rates.	
   	
   One	
   option	
   could	
   be	
   to	
   lower	
   or	
   remove	
   the	
   basic	
   charge	
   on	
   the	
   hydro	
   bill.	
   	
   This	
   would	
  increase	
  the	
  price	
  discrepancy	
  between	
  the	
  step	
  1	
  and	
  2	
  rates	
  and	
  place	
  more	
   of	
  the	
  burden	
  of	
  revenue	
  recovery	
  on	
  those	
  experiencing	
  the	
  step	
  2	
  rate.	
  	
  The	
  basic	
   charge	
   is	
   currently	
   applied	
   equally	
   to	
   all	
   residential	
   customers	
   regardless	
   of	
   consumption	
  level	
  and	
  is	
  therefore	
  a	
  regressive	
  pricing	
  policy.	
  	
  Adjusting	
  the	
  step	
  2	
   threshold	
   so	
   that	
   fewer	
   low-­‐income	
   customers	
   would	
   experience	
   the	
   step	
   2	
   rate	
   would	
  lessen	
  the	
  impact.	
  Since	
  the	
  average	
  consumption	
  of	
  the	
  lowest	
  income	
  group	
   is	
   quite	
   low,	
   adjusting	
   the	
   threshold	
   to	
   provide	
   a	
   reduced	
   bill	
   impact	
   on	
   the	
   large	
   consumers	
  in	
  this	
  group	
  would	
  inevitably	
  provide	
  more	
  benefit	
  to	
  customers	
  in	
  the	
   higher	
  income	
  groups	
  who,	
  on	
  average,	
  consume	
  more.	
   	
   Designing	
   a	
   rate	
   structure	
   that	
   is	
   just	
   and	
   fair	
   for	
   all,	
   yet	
   attempts	
   to	
   shield	
   the	
   minority	
   of	
   customers	
   from	
   adverse	
   affects	
   is	
   a	
   difficult	
   task.	
   	
   It	
   seems	
   that	
   it	
   would	
   29	
    Jason	
  Owen	
  	
    	
    September	
  14,	
  2010	
    make	
   more	
   sense	
   to	
   address	
   the	
   challenges	
   of	
   those	
   suffering	
   from	
   disproportionately	
   adverse	
   impacts	
   with	
   targeted	
   efficiency	
   improvement	
   and	
   rebate	
  programs.	
  	
    4.0 	
   SMART	
  METERS	
  AND	
  TOU	
  PRICING	
   This	
   section	
   deals	
   with	
   the	
   potential	
   repercussions	
   of	
   a	
   recent	
   provincial	
   government	
   policy	
   decision	
   to	
   implement	
   smart	
   meters	
   and	
   TOU	
   pricing	
   on	
   low-­‐ income	
   households.	
   	
   Unlike	
   the	
   RIB	
   rate,	
   first	
   implemented	
   in	
   2008,	
   this	
   type	
   of	
   conservation	
   pricing	
   is	
   untested	
   in	
   BC	
   and,	
   therefore,	
   data	
   is	
   not	
   available	
   for	
   analysis.	
  	
  Accordingly,	
  this	
  portion	
  of	
  the	
  research	
  takes	
  the	
  approach	
  of	
  reviewing	
   various	
   smart	
   meter	
   and	
   TOU	
   pricing	
   pilot	
   studies	
   in	
   other	
   jurisdictions	
   for	
   information	
  relevant	
  to	
  the	
  BC	
  context.	
  	
   	
   In	
   its	
   2010	
   Clean	
   Energy	
   Act,	
   the	
   provincial	
   government	
   recently	
   enabled	
   another	
   form	
   of	
   electricity	
   conservation	
   pricing	
   through	
   the	
   mandated	
   network-­‐wide	
   installation	
   of	
   smart	
   meters	
   by	
   the	
   end	
   of	
   the	
   2010	
   calendar	
   year	
   (Bill	
   17	
   -­‐	
   2010	
   Clean	
  Energy	
  Act,	
  2010).	
  	
  Smart	
  meters	
  allow	
  transfer	
  of	
  to-­‐the-­‐hour	
  consumption	
   data	
   between	
   the	
   utility	
   and	
   its	
   customers,	
   which	
   in	
   turn	
   enables	
   the	
   implementation	
  of	
  a	
  variety	
  of	
  time-­‐of-­‐use	
  (TOU)	
  pricing	
  structures	
  aimed	
  at	
  peak	
   load	
  reductions	
  and	
  improved	
  system	
  efficiency	
  (Girvan,	
  2009).	
  	
  	
   	
   Along	
  with	
  the	
  approximately	
  1.8	
  million	
  residential	
  smart	
  meters,	
  the	
  act	
  calls	
  for	
   the	
   creation	
   of	
   a	
   smart	
   grid	
   installation	
   program.	
   	
   Initial	
   estimates	
   report	
   costs	
   of	
   $660	
  million	
  for	
  the	
  meters	
  and	
  $270	
  million	
  for	
  the	
  grid,	
  for	
  a	
  total	
  price	
  tag	
  of	
  just	
   under	
  $1	
  billion	
  (BC	
  Hydro).	
  	
  	
   	
   The	
   main	
   benefits	
   of	
   a	
   system	
   with	
   smart	
   meters,	
   smart	
   grids	
   and	
   TOU	
   pricing	
   structures	
  include:	
  	
   •  Offset	
   investment	
   in	
   generation	
   facilities	
   to	
   meet	
   peak	
   demands	
   through	
   shifting	
  of	
  demand	
  to	
  off-­‐peak	
  hours	
  (peak	
  load	
  shifting);	
    •  System	
  electricity	
  cost	
  savings	
  from	
  change	
  in	
  demand	
  patterns;	
   30	
    Jason	
  Owen	
  	
   •  Efficiency	
  cost	
  savings;	
    •  Theft	
  prevention;	
  and	
    •  Modernization	
  of	
  the	
  grid.	
    	
    September	
  14,	
  2010	
    	
   The	
   extent	
   to	
   which	
   the	
   above	
   benefits	
   are	
   realized	
   appears	
   to	
   depend	
   on	
   a	
   number	
   of	
   factors	
   not	
   directly	
   related	
   to	
   the	
   initial	
   capital	
   investment	
   in	
   metering	
   and	
   infrastructure.	
  	
  In	
  the	
  case	
  of	
  reduced	
  consumption	
  and	
  peak	
  load	
  shifting,	
  customer	
   uptake	
  of	
  new	
  technologies	
  and	
  behavioral	
  change	
  likely	
  dictate	
  the	
  level	
  of	
  impact	
   of	
  TOU	
  programs.	
    4.1 Smart	
  Meter	
  and	
  Smart	
  Grid	
  Technology	
   Traditional	
   electromechanical	
   meters,	
   the	
   ones	
   currently	
   used	
   by	
   BC	
   Hydro,	
   continually	
  measure	
  the	
  amount	
  of	
  electricity	
  consumed	
  in	
  kWh	
  and	
  require	
  manual	
   reading	
   each	
   billing	
   period.	
   	
   A	
   smart	
   meter	
   records	
   the	
   electricity	
   usage	
   and	
   communicates	
   this	
   information	
   digitally	
   to	
   the	
   utility.	
   	
   This	
   usually	
   occurs	
   on	
   an	
   hourly	
  basis,	
  but	
  more	
  frequent	
  reporting	
  is	
  possible	
  (Girvan,	
  2009).	
  	
  Smart	
  meters	
   are	
   also	
   capable	
   of	
   receiving	
   information	
   from	
   the	
   utility,	
   which	
   is	
   useful	
   for	
   delivering	
  messages	
  about	
  upcoming	
  peak	
  rate	
  periods.	
   	
   Smart	
   meters	
   are	
   a	
   critical	
   component	
   of	
   an	
   advanced	
   metering	
   infrastructure.	
  	
   Other	
  components	
  required	
  to	
  enable	
  advanced	
  metering	
  are:	
   •  Hardware	
  and	
  communications	
  software	
  that	
  allow	
  two-­‐way	
  communication	
   between	
  customers	
  and	
  energy	
  suppliers;	
    •  Data	
   management	
   systems	
   to	
   receive,	
   store	
   and	
   compile	
   information	
   from	
   smart	
  meters;	
  and	
    •  Utility	
   operation	
   software	
   to	
   coordinate	
   meters,	
   the	
   communications	
   network	
  and	
  the	
  data	
  management	
  system	
  (Girvan,	
  2009).	
    	
   Additional	
  technological	
  devices	
  are	
  available	
  to	
  enable	
  customers	
  to	
  better	
  manage	
   their	
  energy	
  consumption	
  by	
  taking	
  advantage	
  of	
  off	
  peak	
  rates,	
  identifying	
  areas	
  for	
   efficiency	
   gains	
   and	
   potentially	
   selling	
   power	
   back	
   to	
   the	
   electricity	
   provider	
   from	
    31	
    Jason	
  Owen	
  	
    	
    September	
  14,	
  2010	
    small-­‐scale	
   onsite	
   generation	
   (BC	
   Hydro).	
   	
   This	
   aspect	
   of	
   the	
   smart	
   grid	
   will	
   likely	
   provide	
   valuable	
   opportunities	
   for	
   integration	
   of	
   onsite	
   renewal	
   energy	
   technologies	
   and	
   will	
   have	
   particular	
   value	
   if	
   and	
   when	
   electric	
   vehicles	
   become	
   commonplace.	
   	
   Individual	
   customers	
   would	
   be	
   financially	
   responsible	
   for	
   these	
   devices,	
  but	
  such	
  technology	
  is	
  considered	
  an	
  integral	
  part	
  of	
  a	
  modernized	
  utility.	
   	
   BC	
  Hydro	
  defines	
  a	
  smart	
  grid	
  as	
  “a	
  modern,	
  automated,	
  intelligent	
  power	
  delivery	
   system	
   that	
   supports	
   additional	
   services	
   and	
   benefits	
   to	
   customers,	
   the	
   environment	
   and	
   the	
   economy”	
   (BC	
   Hydro).	
   There	
   is	
   no	
   one	
   formal	
   definition	
   of	
   the	
   term	
   smart	
   grid.	
   However,	
   smart	
   meters,	
   advanced	
   metering	
   infrastructure	
   and	
   customer-­‐supplied	
   technologies	
   as	
   mentioned	
   above	
   are	
   generally	
   accepted	
   as	
   the	
   fundamental	
  components	
  (Girvan,	
  2009).	
  	
  	
  	
    4.2 Time-­‐of-­‐Use	
  Pricing	
  Structures	
   	
   Most	
  of	
  the	
  benefit	
  of	
  smart	
  meters	
  and	
  smart	
  grids	
  is	
  found	
  in	
  the	
  ability	
  of	
  a	
  utility	
   to	
  differentiate	
  it’s	
  pricing	
  based	
  on	
  peak	
  and	
  off-­‐peak	
  demand	
  periods.	
  	
  Customers	
   are	
   provided	
   with	
   information	
   about	
   upcoming	
   on	
   and	
   off	
   peak	
   rates	
   with	
   the	
   intention	
   of	
   shifting	
   demand	
   away	
   from	
   the	
   peak	
   use	
   periods.	
   	
   This	
   can	
   allow	
   customers	
   to	
   save	
   money	
   on	
   their	
   electricity	
   bill	
   by	
   adjusting	
   their	
   consumption	
   patterns	
   accordingly	
   (BC	
   Hydro).	
   	
   More	
   importantly	
   from	
   the	
   utilities	
   perspective,	
   reductions	
  in	
  peak	
  demand	
  can	
  offset	
  the	
  need	
  for	
  large	
  investments	
  in	
  transmission	
   and	
  distribution	
  infrastructure	
  upgrades	
  (Girvan,	
  2009).	
   	
   There	
   are	
   many	
   ways	
   in	
   which	
   a	
   utility	
   can	
   structure	
   its	
   prices	
   to	
   encourage	
   peak	
   load	
   reduction.	
   	
   Some	
   of	
   the	
   more	
   common	
   forms	
   of	
   time-­‐sensitive	
   pricing	
   are	
   described	
  in	
  a	
  report	
  prepared	
  for	
  the	
  Industry	
  Canada,	
  Office	
  of	
  Consumer	
  Affairs	
   titled	
  the	
  Ontario	
  Smart	
  Metering	
  Initiative	
  as:	
   	
   1. “Time-­of-­use	
   (TOU)	
   prices	
   -­	
   when	
   electricity	
   prices	
   are	
   set	
   for	
   a	
   particular	
   period	
  of	
  time	
  in	
  advance	
  and	
  vary	
  according	
  to	
  different	
  time	
  periods	
  during	
    32	
    Jason	
  Owen	
  	
    	
    September	
  14,	
  2010	
    the	
  day.	
  Typically,	
  the	
  periods	
  include	
  "peak",	
  "off-­peak"	
  and	
  sometimes	
  "mid-­ peak".	
   	
   The	
   prices	
   are	
   set	
   and	
   consumers	
   are	
   made	
   aware	
   of	
   the	
   levels	
   in	
   advance;	
   2. Critical	
   peak	
   pricing	
   (CPP)	
   -­	
   coupled	
   with	
   a	
   time-­of-­use	
   model,	
   critical	
   peak	
   pricing	
  involves	
  charging	
  very	
  high	
  prices	
  on	
  certain	
  peak	
  days	
  or	
  for	
  certain	
   hours	
   when	
   most	
   or	
   all	
   available	
   generation	
   resources	
   are	
   needed	
   to	
   meet	
   electricity	
  demand;	
   3. Critical	
   peak	
   pricing	
   with	
   rebates	
   (CPR)	
   or	
   peak	
   time	
   rebates	
   (PTR)	
   -­	
   under	
   these	
   rates	
   a	
   customer	
   is	
   charged	
   according	
   to	
   the	
   same	
   rates	
   the	
   typical	
   customer	
   in	
   that	
   class	
   faces.	
   The	
   local	
   distribution	
   company	
   notifies	
   the	
   customer	
  of	
  an	
  impending	
  critical	
  peak	
  and	
  the	
  customer	
  has	
  the	
  opportunity	
   to	
  reduce	
  usage	
  during	
  that	
  peak	
  relative	
  to	
  a	
  baseline,	
  receiving	
  a	
  rebate	
  for	
   their	
  actions;	
  and	
   4. Real-­time	
  pricing:	
  refers	
  to	
  pricing	
  signals	
  that	
  are	
  based	
  on	
  actual	
  wholesale	
   prices,	
  often	
  hourly,	
  and	
  not	
  necessarily	
  set	
  in	
  advance	
  (Girvan,	
  2009).”	
    4.3 Impacts	
  of	
  Smart	
  Meters	
  and	
  TOU	
  Pricing	
   There	
   are	
   examples	
   of	
   time-­‐based	
   energy	
   pricing,	
   enabled	
   by	
   smart	
   meters	
   and	
   smart	
   grids,	
   throughout	
   North	
   America.	
   	
   Many	
   jurisdictions	
   have	
   implemented	
   pilot	
   programs	
   to	
   test	
   the	
   various	
   assumptions	
   around	
   time-­‐based	
   pricing	
   structures,	
   customer	
  behaviour	
  and	
  peak	
  load	
  reduction.	
  	
  In	
  Ontario	
  Smart	
  Metering	
  Initiative,	
   Girvan	
   researched	
   various	
   smart	
   meter	
   pilot	
   programs	
   in	
   Ontario	
   and	
   the	
   U.S.	
  	
   While	
   the	
   range	
   of	
   pilot	
   programs	
   reviewed	
   in	
   this	
   study	
   included	
   a	
   varied	
   mix	
   of	
   TOU	
   pricing	
   structures,	
   some	
   common	
   themes	
   emerged.	
   	
   The	
   following	
   points	
   highlight	
   the	
   key	
   lessons	
   learned	
   from	
   the	
   sample	
   of	
   pilot	
   projects	
   reviewed	
   by	
   Girvan:	
   	
   •  TOU	
  rates	
  can	
  induce	
  load	
  shifting	
  and	
  conservation,	
  but	
  do	
  not	
  necessarily	
   do	
  this;	
    33	
    Jason	
  Owen	
  	
   •  	
    September	
  14,	
  2010	
    The	
   presence	
   of	
   enabling	
   technologies	
   such	
   as	
   display	
   monitors,	
   smart	
   thermostats	
   and	
   cycling	
   switches	
   for	
   air	
   conditioners	
   results	
   in	
   greater	
   customer	
  response	
  than	
  without;	
    •  The	
  most	
  effective	
  rate	
  structures	
  were	
  those	
  with	
  CPP	
  rates;	
    •  Bill	
  impacts	
  may	
  not	
  be	
  significant;	
  and	
    •  High	
  electricity	
  users	
  will	
  benefit	
  more	
  than	
  low	
  users	
  (Girvan,	
  2009).	
    	
   Girvan	
  also	
  pointed	
  to	
  some	
  of	
  the	
  limitations	
  of	
  pilot	
  programs	
  in	
  general.	
  	
  For	
  the	
   most	
   part,	
   the	
   programs	
   include	
   a	
   statistically	
   small	
   number	
   of	
   participants,	
   who	
   have	
   been	
   selected	
   on	
   a	
   voluntary	
   basis.	
   	
   Participants	
   are	
   therefore	
   likely	
   to	
   have	
   prior	
   knowledge	
   of	
   energy	
   issues	
   and	
   a	
   general	
   desire	
   to	
   reduce	
   consumption	
   through	
  new	
  technology	
  (Girvan,	
  2009).	
   	
   Another	
   limitation	
   is	
   that	
   full	
   cost/benefit	
   analyses	
   of	
   the	
   capital	
   and	
   long-­‐term	
   costs	
   and	
   savings	
   of	
   smart	
   metering	
   were	
   not	
   included	
   in	
   any	
   of	
   the	
   studies.	
   	
   Girvan	
   makes	
   the	
   point	
   that	
   through	
   rate	
   increases,	
   the	
   customer	
   base	
   is	
   partially	
   responsible	
  for	
  the	
  costs	
  to	
  implement	
  new	
  technologies	
  and	
  ought	
  to	
  be	
  provided	
   with	
  full	
  access	
  to	
  detailed	
  cost/benefit	
  analysis	
  (Girvan,	
  2009).	
   	
   In	
   a	
   separate	
   study	
   conducted	
   by	
   the	
   Brattle	
   Group	
   on	
   residential	
   demand	
   response	
   to	
  dynamic,	
  time-­‐based	
  pricing	
  structures,	
  fourteen	
  of	
  the	
  most	
  recent	
  TOU	
  pricing	
   experiments	
  in	
  the	
  U.S.	
  were	
  examined	
  in	
  detail	
  with	
  respect	
  to	
  customer	
  response	
   (Faruqui	
   &	
   Sanem,	
   2008).	
   	
   The	
   high-­‐level	
   conclusions	
   are	
   similar	
   to	
   the	
   Consumer	
   Council	
  of	
  Canada	
  report	
  and	
  are	
  as	
  follows:	
   •  The	
   largest	
   load	
   reduction	
   is	
   experienced	
   with	
   CPP	
   pricing	
   combined	
   with	
   the	
  enabling	
  technology;	
    •  TOU	
  programs	
  lead	
  to	
  less	
  load	
  reduction	
  but	
  also	
  benefit	
  from	
  the	
  inclusion	
   of	
  enabling	
  technology;	
  and	
    •  The	
   most	
   effective	
   programs	
   include	
   a	
   combination	
   of	
   various	
   dynamic	
   pricing	
  with	
  enabling	
  technologies	
  (Faruqui	
  &	
  Sanem,	
  2008).	
    	
   34	
    Jason	
  Owen	
  	
    	
    September	
  14,	
  2010	
    Faruqui	
   and	
   Sanem	
   also	
   focused	
   more	
   quantitatively	
   on	
   the	
   average	
   peak	
   period	
   consumption	
   impacts	
   across	
   all	
   pilot	
   programs.	
   	
   Results	
   of	
   the	
   study	
   showed	
   that	
   the	
  average	
  peak	
  period	
  demand	
  reduction	
  from	
  TOU	
  pricing	
  alone	
  was	
  5%.	
  	
  When	
   combined	
  with	
  enabling	
  technologies,	
  the	
  effect	
  on	
  peak	
  period	
  consumption	
  was	
  an	
   average	
  reduction	
  of	
  25%.	
  TOU	
  rates	
  combined	
  with	
  CPP	
  rates	
  resulted	
  in	
  average	
   reduction	
  in	
  demand	
  on	
  CPP	
  days	
  of	
  20%,	
  increasing	
  to	
  30%	
  when	
  combined	
  with	
   enabling	
  technologies	
  (Faruqui	
  &	
  Sanem,	
  2008).	
   	
   Aside	
   from	
   customer	
   response	
   projections,	
   Faruqui	
   and	
   Sanem	
   touch	
   on	
   some	
   important	
  social	
  justice	
  issues.	
  	
  One	
  of	
  the	
  pilot	
  programs	
  in	
  particular	
  looked	
  at	
  the	
   correlation	
   between	
   customer	
   demographics	
   and	
   demand	
   response.	
   	
   It	
   was	
   found	
   that	
  the	
  customer	
  characteristics	
  most	
  highly	
  correlated	
  with	
  peak	
  period	
  demand	
   reduction	
   are	
   possession	
   of	
   central	
   air	
   conditioning	
   and	
   a	
   college	
   education	
   (Faruqui	
  &	
  Sanem,	
  2008).	
    4.4 Challenges	
  for	
  Low	
  Income	
  Customers	
   The	
  potential	
  benefits	
  to	
  customers	
  of	
  reduced	
  peak	
  period	
  consumption	
  driven	
  by	
   smart	
  meters	
  and	
  TOU	
  pricing	
  structures	
  are	
  uncertain	
  with	
  respect	
  to	
  the	
  extent	
  of	
   the	
  future	
  bill	
  impacts	
  and	
  total	
  conservation.	
  	
  It	
  appears	
  however	
  that	
  any	
  level	
  of	
   reduced	
  consumption	
  leading	
  to	
  favorable	
  bill	
  impacts	
  will	
  be	
  related	
  to	
  the	
  extent	
   to	
  which	
  each	
  individual	
  customer	
  has	
  the	
  means	
  to	
  shift	
  their	
  use	
  patterns,	
  pay	
  for,	
   and	
  gain	
  the	
  knowledge	
  of	
  new	
  technologies.	
  	
   	
   Smart	
   metering	
   and	
   TOU	
   pricing	
   requires	
   significant	
   utility	
   capital	
   cost	
   expenditures	
  (estimated	
  at	
  $960	
  million	
  in	
  BC)	
  that,	
  by	
  necessity,	
  are	
  passed	
  down	
   to	
   the	
   ratepayers.	
   	
   Other	
   forms	
   of	
   conservation	
   pricing,	
   such	
   as	
   the	
   recently	
   implemented	
  RIB	
  rate,	
  result	
  in	
  comparatively	
  negligible	
  capital	
  cost	
  impacts	
  to	
  the	
   customer.	
   Unlike	
   the	
   RIB	
   rate,	
   where	
   customers	
   who	
   consume	
   less	
   electricity	
   experience	
  fewer	
  negative	
  impacts,	
  TOU	
  pricing	
  requires	
  substantial	
  change	
  to	
  use	
   patterns	
  and	
  enabling	
  technology	
  in	
  order	
  for	
  the	
  customer	
  to	
  benefit.	
  	
  	
   	
    35	
    Jason	
  Owen	
  	
    	
    September	
  14,	
  2010	
    As	
   previously	
   discussed,	
   low	
   income	
   customers	
   are	
   more	
   likely	
   to	
   rely	
   on	
   less	
   efficient	
  appliances	
  and	
  live	
  in	
  energy	
  inefficient	
  homes	
  than	
  the	
  average	
  customer.	
  	
   Further,	
  they	
  may	
  be	
  faced	
  with	
  insurmountable	
  barriers	
  to	
  adjusting	
  their	
  energy	
   use	
   patterns.	
   	
   A	
   single	
   parent,	
   for	
   example,	
   has	
   little	
   choice	
   but	
   to	
   consume	
   electricity	
  for	
  cooking,	
  cleaning,	
  laundry,	
  etc.	
  before	
  or	
  after	
  regular	
  work	
  and	
  school	
   hours.	
   Renters	
   living	
   in	
   apartment	
   buildings	
   may	
   face	
   the	
   additional	
   barrier	
   of	
   restricted	
   hours	
   of	
   operation	
   of	
   shared	
   laundry	
   facilities.	
   Purchasing	
   new	
   devices	
   that	
   could	
   enable	
   personal	
   benefit	
   from	
   smart	
   metering	
   is	
   likely	
   also	
   out	
   of	
   the	
   question.	
   	
   So,	
   in	
   a	
   sense,	
   the	
   burden	
   of	
   capital	
   expenditures,	
   equally	
   distributed	
   among	
  residential	
  customers,	
  is	
  less	
  likely	
  to	
  be	
  offset	
  by	
  conservation	
  potential	
  and	
   off-­‐peak	
  energy	
  consumption	
  for	
  the	
  low-­‐income	
  customer	
  base.	
  	
  	
   	
   This	
  has	
  major	
  implications	
  for	
  a	
  conservation	
  pricing	
  mechanism	
  that	
  ought	
  to	
  be	
   socially	
   just.	
   	
   Environmental	
   and	
   economic	
   benefits,	
   in	
   the	
   form	
   of	
   energy	
   conservation	
  and	
  reduced	
  cost	
  of	
  future	
  assets,	
  may	
  result	
  from	
  the	
  implementation	
   of	
   smart	
   meters	
   and	
   TOU	
   pricing.	
   	
   However,	
   the	
   potential	
   benefits	
   reaped	
   by	
   low	
   income	
   customers	
   are	
   inhibited	
   by	
   the	
   costs	
   of	
   enabling	
   technology	
   and	
   the	
   difficulty	
  in	
  adjusting	
  daily	
  energy	
  use	
  patterns.	
  	
    4.5 The	
  BC	
  Context	
   Pilot	
   studies	
   from	
   other	
   jurisdictions	
   are	
   useful	
   in	
   providing	
   insight	
   into	
   what	
   aspects	
  of	
  smart	
  metering	
  have	
  been	
  successful	
  and	
  any	
  lessons	
  learned	
  that	
  could	
   lead	
  to	
  better	
  implementation	
  of	
  future	
  programs.	
  	
  There	
  are	
  however	
  limitations	
  to	
   certain	
   types	
   of	
   data	
   and	
   observations	
   as	
   they	
   apply	
   to	
   the	
   British	
   Columbian	
   context.	
  	
  BC	
  is	
  unique	
  compared	
  to	
  other	
  jurisdictions	
  currently	
  implementing	
  smart	
   metering	
  programs	
  in	
  that	
  the	
  vast	
  majority	
  of	
  electricity	
  supply	
  comes	
  from	
  large-­‐ scale	
   hydroelectric	
   facilities.	
   	
   This	
   results	
   in	
   vastly	
   cheaper	
   electricity	
   rates	
   and	
   fewer	
  concerns	
  over	
  GHG	
  emissions	
  and	
  other	
  pollutants	
  compared	
  to	
  many	
  other	
   jurisdictions	
   that	
   rely	
   heavily	
   on	
   electricity	
   generated	
   from	
   coal,	
   oil	
   and	
   natural	
   gas.	
  	
   In	
  addition,	
  the	
  value	
  of	
  peak	
  load	
  reduction	
  in	
  BC	
  may	
  be	
  reduced	
  by	
  the	
  ability	
  to	
   adjust	
  the	
  flow	
  of	
  water	
  through	
  large	
  reservoirs	
  in	
  response	
  to	
  demand	
  changes.	
    36	
    Jason	
  Owen	
  	
    	
    September	
  14,	
  2010	
    	
   BC	
   Hydro	
   claims	
   that	
   a	
   full-­‐scale	
   cost/benefit	
   analysis	
   reveals	
   that	
   “the	
   Smart	
   Metering	
   and	
   Smart	
   Grid	
   Programs	
   will	
   deliver	
   a	
   positive	
   net	
   present	
   value	
   of	
   approximately	
   $500	
   million	
   for	
   the	
   benefit	
   of	
   all	
   ratepayers”	
   (BC	
   Hydro).	
   	
   The	
   analysis	
  that	
  leads	
  to	
  this	
  figure	
  has	
  not	
  been	
  made	
  publicly	
  available.	
  	
  However,	
  it	
  is	
   implied	
  that	
  the	
  majority	
  of	
  the	
  cost	
  savings	
  to	
  the	
  utility	
  result	
  from	
  the	
  offset	
  costs	
   of	
   new	
   supply	
   generation,	
   transmission	
   and	
   distribution	
   infrastructure	
   to	
   meet	
   growing	
   peaks	
   in	
   demand.	
   	
   It	
   is	
   not	
   clear	
   whether	
   these	
   savings	
   include	
   the	
   peak	
   load	
   reduction	
   from	
   customer-­‐supplied	
   technologies,	
   or	
   whether	
   the	
   costs	
   to	
   customers	
  of	
  these	
  technologies	
  are	
  considered.	
   	
   BC	
   Hydro	
   has	
   touted	
   another	
   significant	
   potential	
   savings	
   in	
   electricity	
   that	
   is	
   enabled	
   by	
   the	
   smart	
   grid,	
   which	
   is	
   reducing	
   the	
   theft	
   of	
   electricity	
   for	
   marijuana	
   grow-­‐ops	
  and	
  other	
  illegal	
  activity.	
  	
  It	
  is	
  reported	
  that	
  in	
  2006,	
  a	
  total	
  of	
  500	
  GWh	
   was	
  illegally	
  diverted	
  from	
  the	
  grid	
  (Simpson,	
  2010).	
  	
  At	
  2006	
  rates,	
  this	
  equates	
  to	
   a	
  total	
  cost	
  to	
  the	
  utility	
  and	
  ratepayers	
  of	
  $30	
  million	
  ($40	
  million	
  at	
  the	
  2010	
  RIB	
   rate).	
  	
  Implementation	
  of	
  a	
  smart	
  grid	
  would	
  allow	
  BC	
  Hydro	
  to	
  monitor	
  the	
  amount	
   of	
   electricity	
   delivered	
   to	
   particular	
   areas	
   and	
   individual	
   meters	
   would	
   provide	
   a	
   reading	
  for	
  each	
  customer.	
  	
  	
  Others	
  argue	
  that	
  smart	
  meters	
  may	
  make	
  it	
  easier	
  for	
   criminals	
   to	
   steal	
   electricity.	
   	
   Research	
   in	
   other	
   jurisdictions	
   has	
   shown	
   that	
   for	
   anyone	
  with	
  a	
  laptop	
  and	
  a	
  moderate	
  level	
  of	
  computer	
  expertise,	
  it	
  may	
  be	
  possible	
   to	
   hack	
   into	
   the	
   smart	
   metering	
   system.	
   	
   This	
   could,	
   in	
   effect,	
   increase	
   the	
   prevalence	
  of	
  power	
  theft	
  as	
  well	
  as	
  give	
  rise	
  to	
  a	
  range	
  of	
  other	
  security	
  concerns	
   (Quail,	
  2010).	
  	
  	
   	
   The	
  modernization	
  of	
  the	
  electricity	
  sector	
  that	
  comes	
  with	
  smart	
  meters	
  and	
  smart	
   grids	
   is	
   associated	
   with	
   a	
   range	
   of	
   potential	
   benefits.	
   The	
   effectiveness	
   of	
   smart	
   metering	
  in	
  BC	
  is	
  yet	
  to	
  be	
  seen,	
  but	
  the	
  upfront	
  capital	
  investment	
  for	
  the	
  utility	
  is	
   unquestionably	
  significant.	
  	
  The	
  following	
  section	
  will	
  look	
  at	
  some	
  alternate	
  ways	
   of	
   spending	
   ratepayer	
   dollars	
   through	
   household	
   energy	
   efficiency	
   improvments,	
    37	
    Jason	
  Owen	
  	
    	
    September	
  14,	
  2010	
    and	
   the	
   comparative	
   value	
   in	
   these	
   investments	
   for	
   electricity	
   savings	
   and	
   social	
   equity.	
    5.0 	
  ALTERNATIVES	
  FOR	
  HOUSEHOLD	
  CONSERVATION	
   Much	
  of	
  the	
  focus	
  of	
  this	
  report	
  has	
  been	
  on	
  the	
  social	
  equity	
  issues	
  around	
  energy	
   conservation	
   pricing	
   and	
   large-­‐scale	
   investments	
   in	
   metering	
   infrastructure.	
   	
   In	
   this	
   section,	
  this	
  research	
  has	
  identified	
  potential	
  savings	
  in	
  electricity	
  consumption	
  that	
   could	
   arise	
   from	
   investments	
   in	
   household	
   energy	
   efficiency	
   improvements	
   as	
   an	
   alternative	
  to	
  new	
  pricing	
  regimes	
  and	
  smart	
  meters.	
  	
  In	
  section	
  5.3,	
  this	
  research	
   provides	
  suggestions	
  for	
  how	
  energy	
  efficiency	
  improvements	
  can	
  help	
  to	
  alleviate	
   the	
  pressures	
  of	
  energy	
  poverty	
  through	
  low-­‐income	
  energy	
  efficiency	
  programs.	
  	
   	
   BC	
   Hydro’s	
   2007	
   Conservation	
   Potential	
   Review	
   (CPR)	
   was	
   commissioned	
   to	
   identify	
   potential	
   for	
   electricity	
   conservation	
   through	
   DSM	
   measures	
   in	
   the	
   residential,	
   commercial	
  and	
  industrial	
  sectors.	
  	
  Over	
  a	
  20-­‐year	
  study	
  period,	
  the	
  study	
  estimates	
   the	
   total	
   potential	
   electricity	
   savings	
   and	
   peak	
   load	
   reduction	
   from	
   new	
   and	
   emerging	
   energy	
   efficiency	
   technologies,	
   customer	
   supplied	
   small-­‐scale	
   renewable	
   energy	
  and	
  behavioral	
  change	
  (BC	
  Hydro,	
  2007).	
  	
  	
   	
   For	
   the	
   residential	
   sector,	
   the	
   CPR	
   study	
   began	
   by	
   developing	
   a	
   “base	
   year	
   calibration”	
   using	
  data	
  from	
  the	
  2006	
  fiscal	
  year.	
  	
  A	
  reference,	
  or	
  business-­‐as-­‐usual,	
   case	
   was	
   developed	
   through	
   macro-­‐modeling	
   based	
   on	
   the	
   expected	
   level	
   of	
   electricity	
  consumption,	
  accounting	
  for	
  projected	
  economic	
  and	
  population	
  growth.	
   The	
   CPR	
   study	
   group	
   researched	
   available	
   and	
   emerging	
   energy	
   efficiency	
   technologies	
  and	
  practices	
  along	
  with	
  the	
  capital,	
  operating	
  and	
  maintenance	
  costs	
   of	
  each	
  (BC	
  Hydro,	
  2007).	
  	
  	
   	
   For	
   energy	
   efficiency	
   upgrades,	
   the	
   CPR	
   study	
   developed	
   a	
   valuation	
   unit	
   to	
   compare	
  the	
  cost	
  and	
  performance	
  of	
  various	
  technologies	
  and	
  programs.	
  This	
  was	
   referred	
   to	
   as	
   the	
   Cost	
   of	
   Conserved	
   Energy	
   (CCE).	
   	
   CCE	
   is	
   calculated	
   as	
   the	
   annualized	
  incremental	
  cost	
  (including	
  operating	
  and	
  maintenance)	
  of	
  the	
  measure	
   38	
    Jason	
  Owen	
  	
    	
    September	
  14,	
  2010	
    divided	
  by	
  the	
  annual	
  kilowatt-­‐hour	
  savings	
  achieved,	
  excluding	
  any	
  administrative	
   or	
   program	
   costs.	
   All	
   costs	
   and	
   savings	
   are	
   “annualized”	
   by	
   accounting	
   for	
   the	
   service	
  life	
  of	
  the	
  required	
  equipment	
  using	
  a	
  discount	
  rate	
  of	
  6%	
  and	
  are	
  expressed	
   in	
  constant	
  2007	
  dollars	
  (BC	
  Hydro,	
  2007).	
  	
  The	
  following	
  table,	
  extracted	
  from	
  the	
   2007	
   Conservation	
   Potential	
   Review	
   report,	
   provides	
   a	
   summary	
   of	
   the	
   energy	
   efficiency	
  measures	
  considered	
  in	
  the	
  study.	
   Table	
  5	
  -­	
  Annualized	
  Cost	
  of	
  Energy	
  Efficiency	
  Measures10	
  	
   Measure	
    Whole	
  House	
  Fans	
   LCD	
  Computer	
  Monitor	
  	
   DHW	
  Pipe	
  Wrap	
  	
   High	
  Performance	
  T8	
  Lighting	
  -­‐	
  Common	
  Areas	
  	
   CFLs	
  -­‐	
  Standard	
  	
   Low-­‐Flow	
  Showerheads	
  and	
  Faucets	
  	
   DHW	
  Tank	
  Insulating	
  Blanket	
  	
   Programmable	
  Thermostats	
  	
   Standby	
  Losses	
  	
   Timer	
  	
   Heat	
  Pumps	
  for	
  Swimming	
  Pools	
  	
   Replace	
  air-­‐source	
  heat	
  pump	
  with	
  a	
  cold-­‐climate	
  heat	
  pump	
  	
   Energy	
  Star	
  Top	
  Loading	
  Clothes	
  Washer	
  	
   Energy	
  Star	
  Windows	
  	
   Motion	
  Sensor	
  	
   Heat	
  Pump	
  Water	
  Heater	
  	
   LEED	
  Rated	
  Apartment	
  Building	
  	
   New	
  House	
  Designed	
  to	
  an	
  EGNH	
  80	
  Rating	
  	
   Standard	
  T8	
  Lighting	
  -­‐	
  Common	
  Areas	
  	
   Front	
  Loading	
  Washing	
  Machine	
  	
   Energy	
  Star	
  TV	
  	
   Energy	
  Star	
  Fridge	
  	
   Energy	
  Star	
  Dishwasher	
  	
   LED	
  Holiday	
  Lights	
  	
   CFLs	
  Specialised	
  	
   High	
  Efficiency	
  AC	
  	
   Wall	
  Insulation	
  	
   Energy	
  Efficient	
  Freezer	
  	
   DHW	
  Heat	
  Trap	
  	
   Ground	
  Source	
  Heat	
  Pump	
  in	
  Commercial	
  Buildings	
  	
   Air	
  Leakage	
  Sealing	
  	
   Building	
  recommissioning	
  	
   Furnace	
  Fan	
  Motor	
  (ECPMM)	
  	
   Insulating	
  Pool	
  Covers	
  	
   Air	
  Source	
  Heat	
  Pump	
  	
   Attic	
  Insulation	
  	
   High	
  Efficiency	
  HRV	
  	
   Pool	
  Pump	
  Timer	
  	
    Average	
  CCE	
    Annual	
  Savings	
    ($/kWh)	
    (GWh/year)	
    -­‐0.03	
   0.00	
   0.00	
   0.01	
   0.01	
   0.01	
   0.01	
   0.02	
   0.02	
   0.02	
   0.03	
   0.03	
   0.03	
   0.04	
   0.04	
   0.04	
   0.05	
   0.05	
   0.06	
   0.06	
   0.07	
   0.07	
   0.07	
   0.08	
   0.08	
   0.08	
   0.08	
   0.10	
   0.10	
   0.11	
   0.11	
   0.11	
   0.12	
   0.12	
   0.13	
   0.14	
   0.17	
   0.17	
    295	
   41	
   15	
   68	
   708	
   16	
   31	
   148	
   678	
   6	
   185	
   33	
   610	
   192	
   10	
   468	
   124	
   216	
   13	
   21	
   119	
   67	
   129	
   75	
   101	
   10	
   403	
   35	
   4	
   9	
   278	
   61	
   183	
   118	
   124	
   19	
   7	
   108	
    	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
   10	
  Table	
  extracted	
  from:	
  BC	
  Hydro.	
  (2007).	
  BC	
  Hydro	
  2007	
  Conservation	
  Potential	
  Review	
  .	
  Retrieved	
    June	
  1,	
  2010,	
  from	
  BC	
  Hydro	
  Website	
    39	
    Jason	
  Owen	
  	
    	
    Ground	
  Source	
  Heat	
  Pump	
  	
   Waste	
  Water	
  Heat	
  Recovery	
  	
   Duct	
  Sealing	
  	
   Super	
  High	
  Performance	
  Windows	
  	
   Elevators-­‐Geared	
  Regenerative	
  	
   Vacuum	
  Panel	
  Insulation	
  	
   Foundation	
  Insulation	
  	
   LCD	
  TV	
  	
   Premium	
  efficiency	
  motors	
  (2500	
  hrs/yr)	
  	
   Efficient	
  Motors	
  for	
  Pool	
  Pumps	
  	
   Microwave/convection	
  Oven	
  	
   Energy	
  Star	
  Computer	
  	
   Crawl-­‐space	
  Insulation	
  	
    September	
  14,	
  2010	
   0.17	
   0.18	
   0.23	
   0.23	
   0.23	
   0.24	
   0.24	
   0.25	
   0.30	
   0.36	
   0.60	
   0.62	
   0.95	
    24	
   19	
   69	
   142	
   11	
   183	
   84	
   111	
   2	
   100	
   132	
   581	
   11	
    	
    5.1 Conservation	
  Scenarios	
   The	
   CPR	
   study	
   reviewed	
   three	
   classes	
   of	
   potential	
   energy	
   savings:	
   economic	
   potential,	
   upper	
   achievable	
   potential	
   and	
   lower	
   achievable	
   potential.	
   	
   The	
   economic	
   potential	
   electricity	
   savings	
   are	
   defined	
   as	
   the	
   potential	
   savings	
   if	
   all	
   “cost	
   effective”	
   technologies	
  are	
  implemented.	
  	
  In	
  this	
  case,	
  a	
  technology	
  is	
  considered	
  cost	
  effective	
   if	
  the	
  CCE	
  is	
  less	
  than	
  $0.13/kWh,	
  a	
  figure	
  derived	
  from	
  BC	
  Hydro’s	
  “Reference	
  Price	
   for	
   Energy”	
   of	
   $0.088/kWh	
   (based	
   on	
   the	
   results	
   of	
   the	
   2006	
   Call	
   for	
   New	
   Energy	
   Supply).	
   The	
   reference	
   price	
   for	
   energy	
   represents	
   the	
   average	
   cost	
   to	
   deliver	
   energy	
   to	
   the	
   Lower	
   Mainland,	
   including	
   infrastructure	
   costs,	
   transmission	
   losses	
   and	
   projected	
   future	
   costs	
   of	
   regulated	
   GHG	
   emissions.	
   	
   An	
   “economic	
   screen”	
   of	
   50%	
   of	
   the	
   reference	
   cost	
   is	
   added,	
   which	
   accounts	
   for	
   uncertainties	
   in	
   the	
   reference	
  cost	
  (BC	
  Hydro,	
  2007).	
   	
   The	
   achievable	
   potential	
   conservation	
   approach	
   includes	
   the	
   implementation	
   of	
   technologies	
  that	
  could	
  realistically	
  be	
  taken	
  up	
  within	
  the	
  study	
  period.	
  It	
  is	
  based	
   on	
   the	
   recognition	
   that	
   not	
   all	
   customers	
   can	
   be	
   expected	
   to	
   implement	
   available	
   technologies	
   within	
   the	
   study	
   period	
   regardless	
   of	
   whether	
   they	
   meet	
   the	
   economic	
   test	
  or	
  not.	
  	
  The	
  upper	
  and	
  lower	
  achievable	
  potential	
  scenarios	
  represent	
  a	
  range	
  of	
   possible	
   outcomes.	
   	
   The	
   lower	
   achievable	
   scenario	
   assumes	
   that	
   government	
   support	
   and	
   market	
   conditions	
   favoring	
   the	
   implementation	
   of	
   energy	
   efficient	
   technologies	
   remain	
   at	
   existing	
   levels.	
   	
   The	
   upper	
   achievable	
   scenario	
   assumes	
   an	
    40	
    Jason	
  Owen	
  	
    	
    September	
  14,	
  2010	
    increased	
  level	
  of	
  support	
  for	
  energy	
  efficiency	
  through	
  government	
  incentives	
  and	
   favorable	
  market	
  conditions	
  for	
  new	
  technologies	
  (BC	
  Hydro,	
  2007).	
  	
  	
    5.2 Summary	
  of	
  Results	
   The	
   model	
   developed	
   for	
   the	
   CPR	
   study	
   projected	
   future	
   potential	
   reductions	
   in	
   electricity	
  consumption	
  for	
  the	
  three	
  conservation	
  scenarios	
  described	
  above.	
  	
  The	
   results	
  are	
  presented	
  in	
  the	
  table	
  below.	
  	
   	
   Table	
  6	
  -­	
  Forecasted	
  Annual	
  Energy	
  Consumption,	
  Residential	
  Sector11	
    	
   As	
   shown	
   in	
   this	
   table,	
   the	
   potential	
   electricity	
   savings	
   from	
   conservation	
   in	
   the	
   residential	
  sector	
  are	
  projected	
  to	
  be	
  in	
  the	
  range	
  of	
  2,295	
  –	
  3,193	
  GWh/year	
  by	
  the	
   year	
  2026.	
  	
  With	
  the	
  values	
  from	
  this	
  table	
  and	
  the	
  model	
  results	
  for	
  the	
  commercial	
   and	
   industrial	
   sectors,	
   the	
   CPR	
   study	
   team	
   projected	
   that	
   the	
   total	
   conservation	
   potential	
   for	
   BC	
   would	
   be	
   in	
   the	
   range	
   of	
   8,659	
   –	
   15,072	
   GWh/year	
   by	
   the	
   year	
   2026.	
   The	
   associated	
   costs	
   of	
   reaching	
   this	
   potential	
   is	
   $354	
   –	
   $619	
   million.	
   	
   This	
   equates	
  to	
  approximately	
  $0.04/kWh	
  of	
  annual	
  electricity	
  savings	
  (BC	
  Hydro,	
  2007).	
  	
   Assuming	
   this	
   rate	
   is	
   constant	
   for	
   all	
   DSM	
   measures	
   across	
   the	
   three	
   sectors,	
   the	
   upper	
   achievable	
   electricity	
   savings	
   of	
   3,193	
   GWh/year	
   could	
   be	
   met	
   with	
   an	
   investment	
  of	
  $127	
  million.	
  	
  	
   	
   When	
  compared	
  to	
  the	
  estimated	
  $960	
  million	
  that	
  will	
  be	
  spent	
  on	
  installation	
  of	
   smart	
  meters	
  and	
  infrastructure	
  this	
  seems	
  to	
  be	
  a	
  more	
  effective	
  use	
  of	
  ratepayer	
   	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
   11	
  Table	
  extracted	
  from:	
  BC	
  Hydro.	
  (2007).	
  BC	
  Hydro	
  2007	
  Conservation	
  Potential	
  Review	
  .	
  Retrieved	
    June	
  1,	
  2010,	
  from	
  BC	
  Hydro	
  Website:	
   http://www.bchydro.com/etc/medialib/internet/documents/info/pdf/info_2007_conservation_pot ential_review_summary_report.Par.0001.File.info_2007_conservation_potential_review_summary_re port.pdf	
    41	
    Jason	
  Owen	
  	
    	
    September	
  14,	
  2010	
    revenues.	
  	
  In	
  addition,	
  investment	
  in	
  DSM	
  measures	
  is	
  more	
  likely	
  to	
  be	
  distributed	
   within	
  the	
  local	
  economy	
  while	
  smart	
  meter	
  installation	
  will	
  likely	
  be	
  contracted	
  out	
   to	
  a	
  single	
  firm,	
  potentially	
  operating	
  from	
  overseas	
  where	
  more	
  advanced	
  energy	
   efficiency	
  technologies	
  exist.	
    5.3 Considerations	
  for	
  Low-­‐Income	
  Energy	
  Efficiency	
  Programs	
   Energy	
   conservation	
   pricing	
   regimes	
   have	
   the	
   potential	
   to	
   achieve	
   marginal	
   reductions	
   in	
   electricity	
   consumption,	
   but	
   are	
   not	
   effective	
   tools	
   at	
   addressing	
   issues	
   of	
   social	
   inequity.	
   	
   Rather,	
   in	
   some	
   cases,	
   they	
   can	
   be	
   shown	
   to	
   exacerbate	
   inequalities	
  and	
  potentially	
  worsen	
  conditions	
  of	
  energy	
  poverty.	
  	
  	
   	
   Considering	
  the	
  conservation	
  potential	
  in	
  the	
  residential	
  sector	
  identified	
  in	
  the	
  CPR	
   study	
  and	
  the	
  prevalence	
  of	
  energy	
  poverty	
  in	
  this	
  province,	
  there	
  is	
  clear	
  potential	
   for	
   electricity	
   conservation	
   through	
   household	
   energy	
   efficiency	
   improvements	
   targeted	
   at	
   low-­‐income	
   customers.	
   	
   Typical	
   energy	
   efficiency	
   programs	
   offer	
   incentives	
  or	
  rebates	
  for	
  energy	
  efficiency	
  improvements,	
  which	
  are	
  funded	
  through	
   the	
  utilities	
  general	
  revenue	
  stream.	
  	
  Low-­‐income	
  customers	
  rarely	
  participate	
  due	
   to	
  the	
  upfront	
  cost	
  required	
  in	
  order	
  to	
  benefit	
  (Kelly,	
  2007).	
  	
  Programs	
  targeted	
  at	
   low-­‐income	
  customers	
  could	
  address	
  issues	
  of	
  social	
  inequality	
  while	
  capitalizing	
  on	
   a	
   relatively	
   untapped	
   demand	
   for	
   efficiency	
   improvements	
   and	
   opportunity	
   for	
   electricity	
  savings.	
  	
  	
  	
   	
   In	
   a	
   separate	
   report	
   produced	
   for	
   the	
   Energy	
   Poverty	
   component	
   of	
   the	
   Climate	
   Justice	
   Project,	
   McEachern	
   and	
   Vivian	
   reviewed	
   a	
   broad	
   range	
   of	
   low-­‐income	
   energy	
   efficiency	
   programs	
   and	
   developed	
   a	
   set	
   of	
   best	
   practices	
   for	
   development	
   and	
   implementation	
   of	
   future	
   programs.	
   	
   Some	
   of	
   the	
   key	
   recommendations	
   from	
   this	
   study	
  include:	
   -­‐  Program	
   providers	
   should	
   pay	
   up-­‐front	
   cost	
   to	
   enable	
   low-­‐income	
   customers	
   to	
   participate;	
    -­‐  Programs	
  should	
  include	
  outreach	
  and	
  education	
  targeted	
  at	
  renters	
  and	
  other	
   low-­‐income	
  customers;	
    42	
    Jason	
  Owen	
  	
   -­‐  	
    September	
  14,	
  2010	
    Partnerships	
   should	
   be	
   made	
   between	
   multiple	
   levels	
   of	
   government	
   to	
   leverage	
  resources;	
    -­‐  Non-­‐profit	
  organizations	
  and	
  community	
  groups	
  should	
  be	
  sought	
  to	
  help	
  with	
   outreach	
  and	
  education;	
    -­‐  Opportunity	
  to	
  develop	
  construction	
  and	
  retrofit	
  workforce	
  drawing	
  from	
  local	
   population	
  and	
  providing	
  work	
  training	
  to	
  low-­‐income	
  groups;	
  and	
    -­‐  Energy	
   efficiency	
   regulations	
   should	
   be	
   developed	
   for	
   rental	
   apartment	
   buildings	
  resulting	
  in	
  little	
  or	
  no	
  cost	
  to	
  landlords(McEachern	
  &	
  Vivian,	
  2010).	
    6.0 	
   DISCUSSION	
  	
   The	
  cost	
  of	
  providing	
  new	
  sources	
  of	
  electricity	
  to	
  meet	
  the	
  growing	
  demand	
  of	
  an	
   increasing	
   population	
   in	
   a	
   way	
   that	
   limits	
   ecological	
   impact	
   and	
   advances	
   the	
   provincial	
   economy	
   is	
   out	
   of	
   line	
   with	
   the	
   cost	
   to	
   operate	
   and	
   maintain	
   existing	
   assets.	
   	
   Conservation	
   and	
   improved	
   efficiency	
   are	
   likely	
   the	
   best	
   tools	
   available	
   to	
   bring	
  overall	
  demand	
  for	
  electricity	
  closer	
  to	
  the	
  capacity	
  of	
  current	
  supply.	
  	
  Energy	
   conservation	
  pricing	
  regimes,	
  such	
  as	
  RIB	
  and	
  TOU,	
  are	
  key	
  tools	
  in	
  meeting	
  fiscal	
   responsibility	
   and	
   energy	
   conservation	
   objectives	
   simultaneously.	
   	
   These	
   tools,	
   however,	
   are	
   rather	
   blunt	
   and	
   come	
   with	
   a	
   risk	
   of	
   posing	
   significant	
   challenges	
   to	
   low-­‐income	
  customers.	
  	
  It	
  is	
  important	
  that	
  these	
  impacts	
  are	
  carefully	
  considered	
   and	
   that	
   attempts	
   are	
   made	
   to	
   mitigate	
   the	
   potential	
   damage	
   caused	
   to	
   those	
   already,	
  or	
  at	
  risk	
  of,	
  being	
  subjected	
  to	
  energy	
  poverty.	
  	
  	
    6.1 RIB	
  Rate	
   Overall,	
   the	
   RIB	
   rate	
   has	
   a	
   limited	
   impact	
   on	
   the	
   average	
   customer.	
   	
   The	
   highest	
   consumers,	
   those	
   most	
   likely	
   to	
   be	
   of	
   a	
   higher	
   income	
   group,	
   experience	
   marginal	
   cost	
   increases	
   that	
   are	
   relatively	
   insignificant	
   in	
   proportion	
   to	
   income.	
   	
   Low-­‐income	
   customers	
   consuming	
   more	
   than	
   the	
   average	
   for	
   their	
   income	
   group	
   are	
   likely	
   to	
   experience	
   added	
   costs	
   that	
   could	
   potentially	
   pose	
   a	
   significant	
   threat	
   to	
   their	
   livelihood.	
  	
  In	
  one	
  instance,	
  those	
  with	
  the	
  means	
  to	
  reduce	
  consumption	
  are	
  given	
   little	
  incentive	
  to	
  do	
  so	
  and	
  in	
  another	
  there	
  is	
  considerable	
  incentive	
  for	
  those	
  with	
   limited	
  means.	
  	
  	
   43	
    Jason	
  Owen	
  	
    	
    September	
  14,	
  2010	
    	
   The	
  RIB	
  rate,	
  in	
  its	
  current	
  form,	
  will	
  likely	
  not	
  result	
  in	
  a	
  substantial	
  reduction	
  in	
   electricity	
   consumption	
   from	
   most	
   customers	
   and	
   does	
   little	
   to	
   re-­‐distribute	
   the	
   costs	
   of	
   incremental	
   new	
   energy	
   supply	
   across	
   the	
   customer	
   base	
   proportionally	
   with	
   consumption.	
   	
   Considering	
   the	
   increases	
   in	
   BC	
   Hydro’s	
   revenue	
   requirement	
   moving	
  into	
  the	
  future,	
  the	
  RIB	
  rate	
  is	
  likely	
  better	
  than	
  a	
  flat	
  rate	
  increase	
  for	
  the	
   average	
   low-­‐income	
   customer,	
   but	
   customers	
   struggling	
   with	
   financial	
   difficulties	
   and	
  consuming	
  more	
  than	
  the	
  average	
  for	
  their	
  income	
  class	
  will	
  be	
  hit	
  the	
  hardest.	
  	
  	
   	
    6.2 Smart	
  metering	
  and	
  TOU	
  pricing	
  	
   Whereas	
   the	
   RIB	
   rate	
   is	
   targeted	
   at	
   reducing	
   energy	
   consumption	
   by	
   charging	
   a	
   higher	
  rate	
  to	
  those	
  that	
  exceed	
  a	
  bi-­‐monthly	
  electricity	
  threshold,	
  smart	
  metering	
   and	
  TOU	
  pricing	
  structures	
  are	
  intended	
  to	
  incent	
  off-­‐peak	
  electricity	
  consumption	
   and	
  reduce	
  the	
  need	
  for	
  added	
  capacity.	
  	
  Smart	
  meters	
  also	
  offer	
  an	
  opportunity	
  to	
   use	
   power	
   more	
   efficiently	
   and	
   potentially	
   generate	
   electricity	
   on	
   site.	
   	
   Unlike	
   the	
   RIB	
  rate,	
  smart	
  meters	
  and	
  the	
  related	
  infrastructure	
  require	
  a	
  significant	
  up-­‐front	
   capital	
  investment	
  from	
  the	
  utility.	
  	
   	
   The	
  existence	
  of	
  a	
  full	
  cost/benefit	
  analysis	
  is	
  unclear,	
  as	
  are	
  the	
  potential	
  savings	
  to	
   the	
   ratepayers.	
   	
   Pilot	
   projects	
   in	
   other	
   jurisdictions	
   have	
   shown	
   that	
   the	
   extent	
   of	
   energy	
  savings	
  and	
  potential	
  for	
  positive	
  bill	
  impacts	
  largely	
  depend	
  on	
  the	
  ability	
  of	
   the	
  customers	
  to	
  anticipate	
  peak	
  rate	
  periods	
  and	
  apply	
  enabling	
  technology,	
  at	
  an	
   added	
  cost,	
  within	
  the	
  home.	
   	
   This	
   pricing	
   strategy	
   poses	
   greater	
   challenges	
   for	
   low-­‐income	
   customers.	
   	
   The	
   projected	
  $960	
  million	
  cost	
  of	
  the	
  meters	
  and	
  grid	
  upgrades	
  will	
  be	
  recovered	
  by	
  the	
   utility	
  through	
  evenly	
  distributed	
  rate	
  increases	
  over	
  time.	
  The	
  resulting	
  customer	
   savings	
  will	
  require	
  both	
  the	
  ability	
  to	
  adjust	
  use	
  patterns	
  and	
  the	
  financial	
  means	
  to	
   implement	
   enabling	
   technologies	
   in	
   the	
   home.	
   	
   This	
   strategy	
   has	
   the	
   potential	
   to	
    44	
    Jason	
  Owen	
  	
    	
    September	
  14,	
  2010	
    increase	
   the	
   cost	
   burden	
   of	
   electricity	
   on	
   vulnerable	
   low-­‐income	
   households	
   without	
  providing	
  any	
  benefit	
  to	
  those	
  in	
  need.	
  	
    6.3 Potential	
  for	
  DSM	
  and	
  Low	
  Energy	
  Efficiency	
  Programs	
   The	
   results	
   of	
   the	
   detailed	
   analysis	
   carried	
   out	
   in	
   the	
   CPR	
   study	
   indicate	
   that	
   upwards	
   of	
   3,193	
   GWh/year	
   of	
   electricity	
   could	
   be	
   conserved	
   through	
   energy	
   efficiency	
   improvements	
   in	
   the	
   residential	
   sector	
   at	
   a	
   cost	
   of	
   approximately	
   $127	
   million.	
   	
   The	
   question	
   raised	
   by	
   this	
   research	
   is	
   not	
   whether	
   to	
   implement	
   smart	
   meters	
  or	
  DSM.	
  Rather	
  it	
  is	
  a	
  question	
  of	
  how	
  much	
  money	
  will	
  be	
  dedicated	
  to	
  each	
   and	
  what	
  this	
  means	
  for	
  low-­‐income	
  customers	
  and	
  the	
  local	
  economy.	
  	
  Considering	
   the	
   sizeable	
   price	
   tag	
   attributed	
   to	
   smart	
   meters,	
   it	
   seems	
   that	
   there	
   should	
   be	
   no	
   hesitation	
   to	
   make	
   the	
   comparatively	
   small	
   investment	
   required	
   to	
   maximize	
   conservation	
  potential	
  in	
  the	
  residential	
  sector.	
  	
  	
   	
   Given	
   the	
   barriers	
   to	
   low-­‐income	
   households	
   in	
   participating	
   in	
   typical	
   energy	
   efficiency	
  programs	
  and	
  making	
  energy	
  efficient	
  choices	
  for	
  housing	
  and	
  appliances,	
   there	
   is	
   likely	
   significant	
   potential	
   to	
   address	
   energy	
   poverty	
   and	
   energy	
   conservation	
  through	
  targeted	
  low-­‐income	
  energy	
  efficiency	
  programs.	
  	
  	
    7.0 CONCLUSION	
   In	
   the	
   context	
   of	
   energy	
   conservation	
   pricing,	
   goals	
   of	
   social	
   justice	
   and	
   conservation	
   can	
   sometimes	
   be	
   at	
   odds.	
   	
   The	
   increasing	
   cost	
   to	
   supply	
   clean,	
   renewable	
  and	
  reliable	
  electricity	
  ought	
  to	
  be	
  reflected	
  in	
  the	
  rates	
  that	
  consumers	
   face.	
   	
   Further,	
   multi-­‐tiered	
   and	
   time-­‐based	
   rate	
   structures	
   can	
   lead	
   to	
   electricity	
   savings	
   by	
   encouraging	
   consumer	
   conservation	
   and	
   reductions	
   in	
   peak	
   load	
   requirements.	
  	
  However,	
  if	
  left	
  unmitigated,	
  these	
  rate	
  structures	
  along	
  with	
  general	
   rate	
  increases	
  are	
  likely	
  to	
  exacerbate	
  the	
  disproportionate	
  energy	
  burden	
  already	
   faced	
  by	
  many	
  British	
  Columbians.	
  	
  	
   	
   The	
   RIB	
   rate	
   and	
   TOU	
   pricing	
   both	
   present	
   potential	
   challenges	
   to	
   low-­‐income	
   households.	
   	
   The	
   impact	
   of	
   RIB	
   may	
   not	
   appear	
   significant	
   when	
   only	
   the	
   average	
   45	
    Jason	
  Owen	
  	
    	
    September	
  14,	
  2010	
    consumption	
  for	
  low-­‐income	
  households	
  is	
  considered,	
  but	
  those	
  consuming	
  more	
   than	
   the	
   average	
   could	
   be	
   faced	
   with	
   additional	
   hardship.	
   	
   The	
   TOU	
   and	
   smart	
   metering	
  pricing	
  mechanisms	
  will	
  come	
  at	
  a	
  cost	
  to	
  all	
  rate-­‐payers,	
  but	
  low-­‐income	
   customers	
  will	
  have	
  little	
  opportunity	
  to	
  take	
  advantage	
  of	
  the	
  benefits.	
  	
  	
   	
   There	
   is	
   a	
   considerable	
   opportunity	
   to	
   reduce	
   electricity	
   consumption	
   through	
   household	
   energy	
   efficiency	
   upgrades	
   as	
   identified	
   in	
   BC	
   Hydro’s	
   CPR	
   study.	
   	
   If	
   combined	
   with	
   a	
   thoughtful	
   low-­‐income	
   energy	
   efficiency	
   strategy,	
   such	
   measures	
   could	
   go	
   a	
   long	
   way	
   towards	
   reducing	
   energy	
   consumption	
   and	
   alleviating	
   energy	
   poverty.	
   	
   Developing	
   a	
   sustainable	
   energy	
   economy	
   in	
   BC	
   will	
   require	
   a	
   balanced	
   approach	
  that	
  includes	
  carefully	
  designed	
  pricing	
  structures	
  and	
  aggressive	
  support	
   of	
   energy	
   efficiency	
   improvements.	
   	
   In	
   all	
   of	
   these	
   endeavors,	
   social	
   justice	
   implications	
   must	
   be	
   considered	
   and	
   attempts	
   be	
   made	
   to	
   address	
   the	
   barriers	
   to	
   low-­‐income	
  households.	
  	
   	
   	
   	
   	
   	
    	
    46	
    Jason	
  Owen	
  	
    	
    September	
  14,	
  2010	
    8.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY	
   	
   BC	
  Hydro.	
  (2008a).	
  2008	
  Long-­Term	
  Acquisition	
  Plan	
  Application.	
  Retrieved	
  July	
  5,	
   2010,	
  from	
  BC	
  Hydro	
  Website:	
   http://www.bchydro.com/etc/medialib/internet/documents/planning_regulatory/ iep_ltap/2008_ltap_application.Par.0001.File.2008_ltap_application.pdf	
   	
   BC	
  Hydro.	
  (2007).	
  BC	
  Hydro	
  2007	
  Conservation	
  Potential	
  Review	
  .	
  Retrieved	
  June	
  1,	
   2010,	
  from	
  BC	
  Hydro	
  Website:	
   http://www.bchydro.com/etc/medialib/internet/documents/info/pdf/info_2007_c onservation_potential_review_summary_report.Par.0001.File.info_2007_conservatio n_potential_review_summary_report.pdf	
   	
   BC	
  Hydro.	
  (2008b).	
  BC	
  Hydro	
  Residential	
  Inclining	
  Block	
  Application	
  Final	
  Argument.	
   Retrieved	
  July	
  1,	
  2010,	
  from	
  BCUC	
  Website:	
   http://www.bcuc.com/Documents/Proceedings/2008/DOC_18749_B-­‐7_BCH-­‐IR2-­‐ to-­‐BCUC&Intervenors.pdf	
   	
   BC	
  Hydro.	
  (2009).	
  BC	
  Hydro's	
  Electricity	
  Conservation	
  Report.	
  Retrieved	
  August	
  23,	
   2010,	
  from	
  BC	
  Hydro	
  Website:	
   http://www.bchydro.com/etc/medialib/internet/documents/planning_regulatory/ meeting_demand/DSM_Report_2009.Par.0001.File.GDS09_316_DSM_Report_Novem ber_6.pdf	
   	
   BC	
  Hydro.	
  (2008c).	
  Residential	
  Inclining	
  Block	
  Application.	
  Retrieved	
  June	
  22,	
  2010,	
   from	
  BCUC	
  Website:	
   http://www.bcuc.com/Documents/Proceedings/2008/DOC_18056_B-­‐ 1_Residential_Inclining-­‐Block-­‐Rate.pdf	
   	
   BC	
  Hydro.	
  (2008d).	
  Responses	
  to	
  BCUC	
  and	
  Intervenors	
  Information	
  Request	
  No	
  2.	
   Retrieved	
  July	
  1,	
  2010,	
  from	
  BCUC	
  Website:	
   http://www.bcuc.com/Documents/Proceedings/2008/DOC_18749_B-­‐7_BCH-­‐IR2-­‐ to-­‐BCUC&Intervenors.pdf	
   	
   BC	
  Hydro.	
  (n.d.).	
  Smart	
  Metering	
  and	
  Smart	
  Grid	
  Programs.	
  Retrieved	
  August	
  9,	
   2010,	
  from	
  BC	
  Hydro	
  Website:	
   http://www.bchydro.com/planning_regulatory/projects/smart_metering_infrastru cture_program.html	
   	
   BCUC.	
  (2008a).	
  BC	
  Hydro	
  and	
  Power	
  Authority	
  F2009	
  and	
  F2010	
  Revenue	
   Requirements	
  Decision.	
  Retrieved	
  June	
  20,	
  2010,	
  from	
  BC	
  Hydro	
  Website:	
   http://www.bchydro.com/etc/medialib/internet/documents/planning_regulatory/  47	
    Jason	
  Owen	
  	
    	
    September	
  14,	
  2010	
    rev_req/rra_f09_f10_decision_and_errata.Par.0001.File.rra_f09_f10_decision_and_er rata.pdf	
   	
   BCUC.	
  (2008b).	
  BC	
  Hydro	
  and	
  Power	
  Authority	
  Residential	
  Inclining	
  Block	
  Rate	
   Appplication,	
  Reasons	
  for	
  Decision	
  to	
  order	
  G-­124-­08.	
  Retrieved	
  June	
  17,	
  2010,	
  from	
   BCUC	
  Website:	
   http://www.bcuc.com/Documents/Proceedings/2008/DOC_19754_BCH-­‐RIB-­‐ Decision-­‐WEB.pdf	
   	
   BCUC.	
  (2007).	
  BC	
  Hydro	
  and	
  Power	
  Authority,	
  2007	
  Rate	
  Design	
  Application	
  -­	
  Phase	
  1.	
   Retrieved	
  July	
  2,	
  2010,	
  from	
  BCUC	
  Website:	
   http://www.bchydro.com/etc/medialib/internet/documents/info/pdf/info_bcuc_d ecision_october_26_2007_rate_design_applic.Par.0001.File.info_bcuc_decision_octob er_26_2007_rate_design_applic.pdf	
   	
   Bill	
  17	
  -­	
  2010	
  Clean	
  Energy	
  Act.	
  (2010).	
  Retrieved	
  May	
  20,	
  2010,	
  from	
  Legislative	
   Assembly	
  of	
  BC	
  Website:	
  http://www.leg.bc.ca/39th2nd/1st_read/gov17-­‐1.htm	
   	
   Faruqui,	
  A.,	
  &	
  Sanem,	
  S.	
  (2008).	
  The	
  Power	
  of	
  Experimentation:	
  New	
  evidence	
  on	
   residential	
  demand	
  response.	
  Retrieved	
  July	
  28,	
  2010,	
  from	
  www.brattle.com:	
   http://www.brattle.com/_documents/uploadlibrary/upload683.pdf	
   	
   Girvan,	
  J.	
  (2009).	
  The	
  Ontario	
  Smart	
  Metering	
  Initiative:	
  What	
  does	
  it	
  mean	
  for	
   Ontario's	
  residential	
  consumers?	
  Retrieved	
  July	
  21,	
  2010,	
  from	
  Industry	
  Canada	
   Website:	
  http://www.ic.gc.ca/app/oca/crd/dcmnt.do?id=2660&lang=eng	
   	
   Kelly,	
  L.	
  (2007).	
  Affordable	
  Energy,	
  Diversifying	
  DSM	
  Programs	
  in	
  BC:	
  A	
  discussion	
   paper.	
  Eaga	
  Canada	
  on	
  behalf	
  of	
  the	
  Ministry	
  of	
  Energy,	
  Mines	
  and	
  Petroleum,	
  BC.	
   	
   McEachern,	
  M.,	
  &	
  Vivian,	
  J.	
  (2010).	
  Conserving	
  the	
  Planet	
  Without	
  Hurting	
  Low-­	
   ncome	
  Families:	
  Options	
  for	
  Fair	
  Energy-­Efficiency	
  Programs	
  for	
  Low-­Income	
   Households.	
  University	
  of	
  Victoria	
  Environmental	
  Law	
  Centre.	
   	
   NRCan.	
  (2007).	
  2007	
  Survey	
  of	
  Household	
  Energy	
  Use.	
  Retrieved	
  May	
  20,	
  2010,	
  from	
   Natural	
  Resources	
  Canada	
  Website:	
   http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/corporate/statistics/neud/dpa/data_e/sheu07/tables.cfm?a ttr=0	
   	
   Quail,	
  J.	
  (2010).	
  Why	
  Gordon	
  Campbell's	
  'Smart	
  Meters'	
  Are	
  Dumb.	
  Retrieved	
  July	
  20,	
   2010,	
  from	
  The	
  Tyee	
  website:	
   http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2010/07/05/SmartMeters/	
   	
   Simpson,	
  S.	
  (2010).	
  BC	
  Hydro	
  expects	
  smart	
  meter	
  installation	
  will	
  curtail	
  marijuana	
   grow	
  ops.	
  Retrieved	
  August	
  18,	
  2010,	
  from	
  Vancouver	
  Sun	
  Website:	
   http://communities.canada.com/VANCOUVERSUN/blogs/energy/archive/2010/08  48	
    Jason	
  Owen	
  	
    	
    September	
  14,	
  2010	
    /09/bc-­‐hydro-­‐expects-­‐smart-­‐meter-­‐installation-­‐will-­‐curtail-­‐marijuana-­‐grow-­‐ ops.aspx	
  	
   	
   Statistics	
  Canada.	
  (2010).	
  Income	
  in	
  Canada.	
  Retrieved	
  September	
  12,	
  2010,	
  from	
   Statistics	
  Canada	
  Website:	
  http://www.statcan.gc.ca/bsolc/olc-­‐cel/olc-­‐ cel?catno=75-­‐202-­‐X&lang=eng	
   	
   Statistics	
  Canada.	
  (2008).	
  Report	
  on	
  Energy	
  Supply	
  and	
  Demand	
  in	
  Canada.	
  Retrieved	
   June	
  1,	
  2010,	
  from	
  http://www.statcan.gc.ca:	
  http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/57-­‐ 003-­‐x/57-­‐003-­‐x2008000-­‐eng.pdf	
   	
   Terasen	
  Gas.	
  (2010).	
  Rates.	
  Retrieved	
  August	
  20,	
  2010,	
  from	
  Terasen	
  Gas	
  website:	
   http://www.terasengas.com/Homes/Rates/default.htm	
   	
   The	
  British	
  Columbia	
  Public	
  Interest	
  Advocacy	
  Centre.	
  (2008).	
  BCUC	
  Website.	
   Retrieved	
  May	
  20,	
  2010,	
  from	
  Final	
  Arguments	
  of	
  BCOAPO	
  et	
  al.:	
   http://www.bcuc.com/Documents/Arguments/2008/DOC_19295_07-­‐ 18_BCOAPO_FinalArgument_BookAuthorities.pdf	
   	
   The	
  Government	
  of	
  the	
  Province	
  of	
  BC.	
  (2007).	
  The	
  BC	
  Energy	
  Plan:	
  A	
  Vision	
  for	
   Clean	
  Energy	
  Leadership.	
  Retrieved	
  June	
  20,	
  2010,	
  from	
   http://www.energyplan.gov.bc.ca:	
   http://www.energyplan.gov.bc.ca/PDF/BC_Energy_Plan.pdf	
   	
    	
  	
    49	
    

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.310.1-0102521/manifest

Comment

Related Items