When David stood up to Golliath he had pebbles and a sling shot. But against BL&P which had two years to prepare a case the FTC has taken away both the sling shot and pebbles from the consumer. An informed review of the deadlines for the rate hearing shows that Intervenors have very tight deadlines and in some cases a few weeks to respond. Contrary to he one-way flow of information readers of this blog would be aware that the bigget costs are to be borne by those who can least afford it while Large Power are bearing the least increase overall.
Dr. Marion Williams made the point recently that in these times a safety net should be provided for the least who can afford it while those who can should bear a larger burden. The BL&P application does not reflect this. The largest increase is borne by the residential consumer, the next largest increase is borne by the small business and NGO, Churches etc and the Large Power users are to bear the least increase.
Is this fair?
And why is BL&P changing from an across the board rate proposal to an "inclining block". Would an across the board increase not be easier for a consumer to budget for? Why is the BL&P using a test year of 2008 when this was the year when the global energy crisis was at its highest. Would the application not be inflated against the interests of the consumer as a result?
What do you think?
Happy Birthday Building Code - This year is the 20th anniversary of the publication of the Barbados National Building Code (BNBC) for use by designers, building contractors and governmen...
8 hours ago