The reason legitimate utility consumers pay for what they do not use

Unsurprisingly the backlash at Monday’s Office of Utilities Regulation (OUR) Town Hall Meeting in Spring Village, St Catherine, when such utterance was repeated and was instantly met with consternation.

“So we are spending money, not getting enough for it… paying for somebody else’s debt and we are still not getting what we are supposed to get. Because from the get go what supposed to be done isn’t done as yet,” said Audrey Edwards, during an exchange with Gordon Brown, public affairs co-ordinator at the OUR.

During the conversation inside the Institute of Vocational and Professional Training, Edwards asked: “Who pays for what somebody is using illegally. Do I pay for that too?

“Yes!” said Brown

“Why?” Edwards asked seeking further clarity.

“Because you have to,” Brown responded bluntly.

“But I did not use it. I should not be paying for that,” Edwards countered to applause from the audience.

“Unfortunately she is right. However, the reality is that you pay for somebody’s teefin light,” Brown admitted.

By this time tensions had increased significantly as murmurs became audible.

Approximately 12 percent of revenue loss attributed to theft is apportioned to legitimate consumers, a JPS representative later explained. The other 88 percent is borne by the electricity company. It’s been a longstanding battle for the JPS to mitigate against electricity theft with losses estimated in the tens of millions.

Brown pointed to the ‘anti-informer’ culture as one of the main reasons why the good is suffering for the bad because others refused to speak out against those stealing from the utility companies.

His analogy did not sit well with the audience, who rejected the notion that they should risk their lives. 

“Until you see somebody throw up light with a wire and you contact one of the (utility companies) and say ‘I saw somebody throwing up light and you give some information… whereby the utility company doesn’t lose their batteries, their generators, their cables and their supply to somebody who is stealing, there is a cost to that and it is borne by everyone. Likewise society is bearing the cost of gunmen. That’s a reality everybody is affected by gunmen. Likewise everybody is affected by stealing from the utilities,” Brown said, during which a woman shouted “wi will ded!”

Edwards is one of those persons who believe the utility providers have the capacity to detect stealing and should not be compelling legitimate customers to share the burden of loss revenue.

“What about the rights and responsibility of these companies? What is it that our tax dollars are doing? Can’t they put measures in place? The same way they know that the light is being stolen technology can say to them ‘at 10:15 pm a wire just went up’. Use technology and stop asking honest people with children and grandchildren to become informants for you,” she contended.

With all major utility companies represented except for the National Water Commission, Brown said: “I take it therefore from the applause that the utility representatives here will understand how going forward tariff reviews must include components for reducing the burden that is being placed on utility consumers in general.”

He noted that the OUR have been making efforts to get utility companies to address this burning issue within the shortest possible time, while the providers are still able to make a “reasonable return on their investment”.

“I know the point is sticky… but there is a responsibility on your part and there is a responsibility on the utility’s part.

“The OUR is moving to put things in place to reduce, hopefully one day to zero, the amount of teefin.

“But we live in a society that have laws that we have to use and there are calculations that we must use that we have to stick to,” said Brown.