BC Hydro charging you to cover those who can't pay...

[bob vernon]

Don't let the truth get in the way of smearing somebody. This is the internet. Truth doesn't count. Vitriol does. Playing the victim card does. Insensitivity to the poor does.

[Cactusflower]

Cactusflower wrote.

http://vancouversun.com/opinion/columni ... -contracts
Okay, here you go. There are plenty more. Would you like me to post those as well?

Thank you for the old news. Don't bother posting any more I thought I had missed something, but I see where you're coming from. I haven't changed my opinion from back then.

Perhaps you missed this one. You may not want to read it, but there are a few unbiased readers on this thread that may find it interesting.
https://thenarwhal.ca/did-bc-hydro-exec ... ite-c-dam/

[Merry]

I'm not sure how this discussion wound up being about Site C, but there's another thread for that. So let's get back on topic.

I had to give this one a lot of thought because, while on the one hand I'm not averse to giving up a few dollars for the needy, on the other hand I'm not sure this is the right way to do it. Because I share the concern that the amount might be arbitrarily increased over time, that the administrative costs are, or could become, ridiculously high, and that either Hydro or the Government could be tempted, at some future date, to raid the fund for their own purposes.

We have social programs that are supposed to be there to help the needy. Such programs already have an administration in place to determine who qualifies, and to handle the distribution of the funds. So surely it would have been more efficient and cost effective to use this existing network to handle helping needy folks pay their Hydro bills. Why reinvent the wheel?

Even if it required more staff to help with the extra workload, I think that would have been less expensive overall than having Hydro get into the social program business. One of the reasons ICBC started to lose money was because they began to be required to take on tasks that are more appropriately the purview of the Provincial Government; not an insurance company. Now we seem destined to make the same mistake over at Hydro.

Social programs should be administered by the appropriate arm of the Government, not by companies (even if they are Government owned companies).

[Cactusflower]

I'm not sure how this discussion wound up being about Site C, but there's another thread for that. So let's get back on topic.

I had to give this one a lot of thought because, while on the one hand I'm not averse to giving up a few dollars for the needy, on the other hand I'm not sure this is the right way to do it. Because I share the concern that the amount might be arbitrarily increased over time, that the administrative costs are, or could become, ridiculously high, and that either Hydro or the Government could be tempted, at some future date, to raid the fund for their own purposes.

We have social programs that are supposed to be there to help the needy. Such programs already have an administration in place to determine who qualifies, and to handle the distribution of the funds. So surely it would have been more efficient and cost effective to use this existing network to handle helping needy folks pay their Hydro bills. Why reinvent the wheel?

Even if it required more staff to help with the extra workload, I think that would have been less expensive overall than having Hydro get into the social program business. One of the reasons ICBC started to lose money was because they began to be required to take on tasks that are more appropriately the purview of the Provincial Government; not an insurance company. Now we seem destined to make the same mistake over at Hydro.

Social programs should be administered by the appropriate arm of the Government, not by companies (even if they are Government owned companies).

The Site C dam and BC Hydro will forever be tied to each other, Merry, and that's why I'm putting these links out there for everyone to consider. You say yourself that you're not thrilled with this set-up because at some point in the future, BC Hydro or the government could be tempted to raid the fund for their on purposes. I'm just saying that perhaps BC Hydro isn't content to wait until some future date. I'm also saying that they need the fund to pay for cost overruns on the Site C dam.

There's another story that came out just today:
https://www.castanet.net/news/BC/229365 ... ctor-fined
Somebody has to pay all the fines incurred by BC Hydro contractors. I wonder who that will be?

[Merry]

I doubt this fund could raise enough money to make a meaningful contribution to a hugely expensive project such as Site C.

[vegas1500]

I'm not sure how this discussion wound up being about Site C, but there's another thread for that. So let's get back on topic.

I had to give this one a lot of thought because, while on the one hand I'm not averse to giving up a few dollars for the needy, on the other hand I'm not sure this is the right way to do it. Because I share the concern that the amount might be arbitrarily increased over time, that the administrative costs are, or could become, ridiculously high, and that either Hydro or the Government could be tempted, at some future date, to raid the fund for their own purposes.

We have social programs that are supposed to be there to help the needy. Such programs already have an administration in place to determine who qualifies, and to handle the distribution of the funds. So surely it would have been more efficient and cost effective to use this existing network to handle helping needy folks pay their Hydro bills. Why reinvent the wheel?

Even if it required more staff to help with the extra workload, I think that would have been less expensive overall than having Hydro get into the social program business. One of the reasons ICBC started to lose money was because they began to be required to take on tasks that are more appropriately the purview of the Provincial Government; not an insurance company. Now we seem destined to make the same mistake over at Hydro.

Social programs should be administered by the appropriate arm of the Government, not by companies (even if they are Government owned companies).

The Site C dam and BC Hydro will forever be tied to each other, Merry, and that's why I'm putting these links out there for everyone to consider. You say yourself that you're not thrilled with this set-up because at some point in the future, BC Hydro or the government could be tempted to raid the fund for their on purposes. I'm just saying that perhaps BC Hydro isn't content to wait until some future date. I'm also saying that they need the fund to pay for cost overruns on the Site C dam.

There's another story that came out just today:
https://www.castanet.net/news/BC/229365 ... ctor-fined
Somebody has to pay all the fines incurred by BC Hydro contractors. I wonder who that will be?

It will be the contractors that incurred the fine...

[OKkayak]

So let me get this straight. BC Hydro is charging their customers $3/year for a “charity” fund to help others pay their bills. That’s all fine and dandy, but it’s mandatory. Ok, well then I’ll just switch hydro providers if I don’t support this. Oh wait, there aren’t any for most of us.

Yeah, this is wrong in so many levels.

[Cactusflower]

The Site C dam and BC Hydro will forever be tied to each other, Merry, and that's why I'm putting these links out there for everyone to consider. You say yourself that you're not thrilled with this set-up because at some point in the future, BC Hydro or the government could be tempted to raid the fund for their on purposes. I'm just saying that perhaps BC Hydro isn't content to wait until some future date. I'm also saying that they need the fund to pay for cost overruns on the Site C dam.

There's another story that came out just today:
https://www.castanet.net/news/BC/229365 ... ctor-fined
Somebody has to pay all the fines incurred by BC Hydro contractors. I wonder who that will be?

It will be the contractors that incurred the fine...

Sure, but it all trickles down to the consumer eventually, doesn't it?

[Snman]

Perhaps you missed this one. You may not want to read it, but there are a few unbiased readers on this thread that may find it interesting.
https://thenarwhal.ca/did-bc-hydro-exec ... ite-c-dam/

Somewhat interesting, I read the first article. First pic, very cool. Isaac Asimovish. No?

[Jim Dixon]

Check your latest BC Hydro bill and note the line items. There you will see you are now FORCED to pay their "Customer Crisis Fund charge" which is also taxed! You might want to jump down to "CONCLUSION" near the bottom of this post.

[[ RANT MODE ON ]]
Calling BC Hydro (BCH), after the 4 minute answers to assumed questions, a agent may respond - or not, but one I managed to finally get said that the money is used for a senior "in crisis" that may be in hospital and unable to pay their electric bill.
Un-huh. Really - that is what she said. When pressed, she also said that it could be someone suffering from spousal abuse, lost job, just about anyone that cannot afford to pay their BCH bill. I told her that "I am retired, in crisis, and having a panic attack enhanced by an anxiety attack and really stressed out over all this. All I need is a doctor's letter and I get you, dear reader, to pay my electric bill for me. How does it feel?

No, for those NDP haters, this is NOT by the NDP, it was lobbied by the BC Seniors Association for over 2 years and approved by the Liberals Good-old Appointed boys/girls at the British Columbia Utilities Commission (BCUC)

A call to BCUC scared me. Someone actually answered without a slurry of pre-conceived automated answers and button pushing. The nice person there listened and explained a great deal, none of which satisfies my concern hat BCUC approved such a smarmy approach to scamming the consumer.

I was transferred, and nice lady with a heavy British accent reminded me that I had an opportunity to voice my concern two years ago when they held some sort of public hearing input. Ummm - sure, I remember that! I may have been busy monitoring Telus, Shaw, Fortis, ad nauseum for their public input announcements. (If you don't recognize facetious, you just read it - but I think it IS appropriate).

So I asked, what is next? Will I be donating to Save the Whales, Save the Trees, Cancer, Lung, Heart, Liver and Brain campaigns? There is "no opting out - every BC Hydro customer must pay".

But, there is a long road to complain, full of hoops and hurdles put in place to deliberately deter the "public" from gaining the upper hand and stopping this kind of outright Internet-style of smarmy con jobs.

It's too bad that too many are too chicken to withhold that amount from their bill. Granted, it is is minimal, but it is the principals of the issue that matters. Clearly, BCUC has no morals, ethics or principals so complaints end up in File 13.
[[ RANT MODE OFF ]]

CONCLUSION:

I encourage everyone to call BCUC and complain. Calling BC Hydro is a exercise - well, the kind that doesn't burn calories - just tempers.

You can call BCUC at 1-844-708-3208 - come on - do it. Try to take back consumer rights.

They are sending me a E-booklet on how to file a "reconsideration" application and if you PM me, I'll send you copy too.

The more Apathacans that sit by and let this robbery happen, the higher our bills will go.

... just announcin s'all

j.

[oneh2obabe]

Being discussed here viewtopic.php?f=26&t=78686

[Jim Dixon]

Hmmm, all of a sudden I feel myself getting up to $600 behind on my payments.


The NDP promised to freeze our electric rates, and now Horgan is saying, suck the money from everyone. You only need a break if one foot is already inching in to the gutter.

FAILED! You can't blame the NDP for this one. It was in the works for over two years (can you say Liberals). But no matter, a Party is a Party and NDP and Liberals are the only parties that no one complains about the noise... just about each other --- yawn.

Blaming one or the other party won't change the scam BC Hydro has pulled.

The 'fee'; is a "Customer Crisis Fund" and I think because of this, I'll have a anxiety attack, a panic attack and a crisis attack... so please sir, pay my bill - it's high cause of the extra air conditioners running due to all the heat from my 65" curved 4x4k TV/monitor and Jacuzzi steam. Horgan had nothing to do with it - the monitor that is.

...

[OKkayak]

FAILED! You can't blame the NDP for this one. It was in the works for over two years (can you say Liberals). But no matter, a Party is a Party and NDP and Liberals are the only parties that no one complains about the noise... just about each other --- yawn.

Blaming one or the other party won't change the scam BC Hydro has pulled.

The 'fee'; is a "Customer Crisis Fund" and I think because of this, I'll have a anxiety attack, a panic attack and a crisis attack... so please sir, pay my bill - it's high cause of the extra air conditioners running due to all the heat from my 65" curved 4x4k TV/monitor and Jacuzzi steam. Horgan had nothing to do with it - the monitor that is.

...

Yeah, but it’ll be the NDP Crowd taking credit and patting themselves on the back showing everyone how charitable they are.

[lesliepaul]

Not a nickel from me. These B.C. politicians have proven to be liars for decades. If Horgan, Weaver, Eby, James or any of them told me this nickel would save their lives...……….R.I.P.

[flamingfingers]

My "Crisis" cost was $0.11 - for 2 months and while I can probably find a couple of nickles or a dime here and there to cover the cost, I resent this on principle. What's next? Bell charging me an extra buck or two to cover the costs of someone who can't pay THEIR bill? Gas company charging a few bucks a month to cover those who can't afford their bills?

Now,maybe I missed something in dead tree newspapers, but I read a heck of a lot online and cannot recall ANYTHING from 2 years ago that suggested BC Hydro putting this money grab in front of the BCUC. And I am more than PO'd that the BCUC agreed to it!!