← Back

Your message to the BLOGMASTER was sent

Submitted by Zee Babb

Marketing Manager Stephen Worme (l) General Manager Peter Williams (r)
Marketing Manager Stephen Worme (l) General Manager Peter Williams (r)

Let us say that BL&P technically and legally have a case for a review of rates. Even if only on the basis of not having done so for 25 years.

But on what basis does a company that has been making profits every year – not even based on competitive productivity, but on legislated guarantee, demand their right to earn an additional 4.4 % return on investment in a market where all others are facing losses, cutbacks, layoffs and failures?

BL&P is guaranteed a profit on whatever expenses they can convince the FTC they need to incur to produce electricity.

What ever salaries

What ever consultants

What ever equipment

What ever ‘expenses’

The cost of fuel means nothing to them – it is passed directly on to customers.

They presently add these costs all up and collect a cool 6% profit on top. (so the bigger the *cost of operation* the bigger their profits) They now want 10.4% instead of only 6%..

No wonder they do not care about renewables.

As recently as 4 years ago, this may have been understandable. But how can it be justified in 2009? It sends the message that BL&P, in their effort to get their pound of flesh, is willing and committed to squeezing every last drop of blood from their captive customers especially the small ones– even as these customers lie on their sick beds.

The very fact that this company could persist with this case at this time, and even worse, their admission that no consideration was taken of any effects on customers, belies their claimed concern for their customers and smacks of strong influence in their decision making that is external to this country.

The 6% which they admit that they are currently making is an outstanding performance by any measure in the current economic environment. They continue to enjoy the luxury of operating in the absence of any competition, and of perpetuating the myth of *good management* and high efficiency.

The facts are that their performance is mediocre at best. Huge sums are paid to external consultants for most areas of technical work that should be performed internally; their amateurish performance with the current wind project is laughable. The proposed gas pipeline from Trinidad and the related development at St Lucy has been a complete and expensive mess, and they badly lost the one project in which they had to compete against other competitors – the desalination plant.

It is also obvious that they managed without a rate increase for 30 years because of high market growth and on rates that had been overly generous as Wendell McClean had said at the time. During that period, the real price to customers of many similar products actually fell.

A Company that really cared about its customers, and indeed about itself, would at this time be much more focused on easing the strain that is presently suffocating many of its customers. This could be achieved by offering mechanisms to ease the strain of high payments, cutting down on wastage, improving efficiency, and moving to renewable technologies.

A rate application at this time by a profit making BL&P is insensitive, inconsiderate and insulting to those other companies and households in Barbados that are fighting to keep their heads above water.

Shame!!


Discover more from Barbados Underground

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

51 responses to “Barbados Light & Power Shame”

  1. Johnny Postle @ Avatar

    Thats what happen when you allow monopolistic control by any entity. I have always said that Barbados is/was ripe for exploitation because its people remain passive to anything they do not understand and reticent for fair of reprisal. It is time that the market become competitive so that consumer can reap the benefits of fair and reasonable cost structures.


  2. Well said.

    It now remains to be seen what that arse neville niccols will do.

    His refusal today of the intervenor’s request for time to study the transcript is not a good sign.

    Why did the DLP leave this popmpous relic as chairman of the FTC boggles the mind.

    The man is not objective,he is not bright,he is snobbish and seems impressed with every argument put forward by the Company.

    Every thing points to the company not deserving an increase,but this man niccols seem to have no thought for the public suffering at this time as it is.

    What qualifications does he possess that qualifies him fit to hold that position of Chariman?

    I felt so ashamed to day to hear how those intervenors were treated.

    Lord help us all.


  3. I have not followed the discussions but from my point of view all the objectors can do is to try to prove that the costs are too high and that the company does not need a 10.48% return to attract investors.

    If the objectors cannot prove at least one of points they have just wasted a lot of time.

    Some of us just like to be on television and the radio. Many of us do not have the skills to put up sensible arguments against the well qualified experts of the Light and Power Company.


  4. Something tells us BANGO may NOT be able to stream tomorrow but just in case we are wrong here is the link.

    http://www.ustream.tv/channel/ngo-news


  5. Sir ??? Nichols is a former head of the Caribbean Development Bank and Deputy Solicitor General of Barbados.

    I was told that he is a Barbados Scholar and holds a degree in Economics and is qualified lawyer.

    Seems like he is very well qualified both by experience and academic training.

  6. Poor People Fed Up Avatar
    Poor People Fed Up

    The FTC , by its actions over the years, have demonstrated scant regard for the plight of consumers. It is therefore puzzling that supposededly intelligent Bajans still have faith in this entity.

    This is nothing more than an elaborate charade to mask foregone conclusions.


  7. Perhaps Opposition Leader Mia Mottley can persuade her opposition colleague and relative Ronald Toppin to reveal to the public why he resigned as Minister when he had charge of the FTC. His legacy will be the richer for it.

  8. Poor People Fed Up Avatar
    Poor People Fed Up

    The FTC is a creature of government and by extension politicians. We should therefore not expect to see the FTC’s dirty laundry in public.

    Is it not interesting that Dennis Kellman is the only politician, if I am not mistaken, who has said anything on this issue?


  9. Anonymous // October 23, 2009 at 3:19 AM

    “Sir ??? Nichols is a former head of the Caribbean Development Bank and Deputy Solicitor General of Barbados..
    Seems like he is very well qualified both by experience and academic training.”

    CORRECTION .. he is a qualified BUREAUCRAT, like so many others…easy jobs, big money, NO RETURNS ON INVESTMENT!


  10. Poor People Fed Up

    Mascoll as opposition leader had nothing to say when Bartel was in the cross hairs. The Government should be on the people’s side!

    Blasted bureaucrats, another one is taking over the head of the Central Bank and makes it clear up front that there is “nothing wrong with being a creature of the Prime Minister” WRONG! There is something wrong… the size of your salary and that of you predecessors..!


  11. Will the commissioners be paid out of retained earnings? A reward is being offered for the correct answer!

  12. Poor People Fed Up Avatar
    Poor People Fed Up

    I am thinking that the commissioners are paid by the Government, I mean tax payers, which mean consumers. In other words we.

    I hope I am wrong.


  13. an increase from 6.07% to 10.48% is actually a 72% increase. In 1983 they were at 7.72%.

    If this is so and they were able to sustain 25 years without an increase, then, if given an increase it will take them 66 years to get back for a rate increase. Do the mathematics.

    Furthermore, this is more about a rebalancing act as they call it; to reduce the price to big power and place it on the householders.


  14. Please note the Mission/Motto Statement of the FTC – the emphasis is ours:

    To be a transparent and accountable agency providing professional services to those whom we serve, thereby safeguarding the interest of consumers, promoting and encouraging fair competition and ensuring efficient regulated utility services.

    Given the above the FTC Commissioners have a duty to protect the interest of consumers. This is especially cogent in a country where consumerism and consumer advocacy is struggling to take root. To expect the Intervenors to take notes of salient points is obviously asking too much when he knows it is a volunteer force and circumstances may cause some of them to be away earning money to pay their bills.

     

    Fairness and Justice for ALL!


  15. It is interesting to note that the Chairman is ignoring the SI detailing such hearings.

    Therein it is stated that transcripts are to be provided *within* two business days. This means that we should have had the transcripts for day 10 by the end of day yesterday. We have only received up to day six as of this morning….


  16. I find that when it comes to the people’s business, those in authority feel that they can run roughshod over the people.

    What was the problem with giving Intervenors time to condense their arguments into the time allotted? We have only received up to day 6 of the transcripts and if you look at the regulations, we should have the transcripts at least two days after each session. Today is day 13. The FTC is therefore in breach of this regulation right now.

    We have about 1500 pages of materials to go through. It is a waste of time going into the hearing and giving gut feelings about the matter because it will not be evidence, just pure dialogue… and then when we submit a written closing which may be different to what you said, how does that help you?

    Even if we did a summary of our closing and then hand it in as a written document, the summary should not vary from the actual document.

    Considering that Public Counsel requires the transcripts as do other intervenors, it would have been quite in order to do the closing five days after the transcripts are available. To my mind, this is total disrespect shown to the intervenors.

    It is noteworthy that from the Depreciation Hearing, Sir Henry Forde for the BL&P raise the point that to come back the morning after is a strain. We supported Sir Henry on the point then and when we had the Procedural Conference, Sir Henry raised it again and was again supported by us.

    In his response, the same Chairman responded to the effect that even if the time runs over, having time between the final cross examination and the closing should not be a problem.

    At the start of this hearing, the chairman indicated that 13 days we allocated to complete the hearing. Today is day 13. I can only ask about his statement concerning “even if it went over the allotted time”?

    Have to run. More later.


  17. The Chairman was quick to point out yesterday the current proceedings is not taking place in a court of law. The Public Counsel to his credit was quick to retort that the Chairman represents the law in the current proceedings.

    A lot weighs on the deliberations and final decision of this matter by the FTC. Consumers of Barbados will feel the brunt of a decision to hike rates in their pockets. Big business seems to be looked after given what we have read and heard to date, it is the domestic and small business customers who deserve every opportunity to place a case which is thorough by the volunteer force who are representing them.

  18. Poor People Fed Up Avatar
    Poor People Fed Up

    David,
    Re: FTC Mission Statement

    Has this not proved to be Mission Impossible for the FTC?

    I respect what the Intervenors are doing, but someone has to say enough already. The Intervenors should stop giving legitimacy to this process and expose it for the sham it is.


  19. I am a consumer and I FEEL (as I am entitled to do) that the FTC mind mek up long time…!


  20. It is time that we become not so docile!

    We need to be more vigilent and assertive!!

  21. Poor People Fed Up Avatar
    Poor People Fed Up

    The applicant’s lawyer has skillfully used the words of some intervenors to enhance their case.

    If the written submissions are no less important than the oral ones, why have them at all?

    Woe be to the poor.

  22. Poor People Fed Up Avatar
    Poor People Fed Up

    Will BL&P be allowed to get away with these vague promises on increasing efficiency?


  23. @Poor People Fed Up

    You beat BU to it. Why have closing arguments if according to the Chairman the affidavits and other documents have become a matter of record and will be used to inform subsequent deliberation and final decision.

    As expected the Intervenors failed to get a delay to the proceedings even when the FTC is in breach of their own rules of providing transcripts two clear days BEFORE!

  24. Poor People Fed Up Avatar
    Poor People Fed Up

    Chris, the eternal optimist and pacifist that he is, has secured a half promise that the written submissions will be available on the FTC’s website.

    If this does not materialize, the intervenors should try to make them available.

    At least the intervenors can now counter or clarify those issues flagged by the QC, in their written submissions.


  25. one in a million


  26. paparazzi

  27. Bad Man Saying Nuttin Avatar
    Bad Man Saying Nuttin

    Where is the risk in BL&P operations?
    they are a monopoly and are guaranteed sales and profits by law. Tell me which businesses can guarantee a 10 % return without any risk to the investment made?

    6% is fine. its much better than the banks are offering. about the same as insurance companies with a lot less risk. if you want to attract investors then ask Government to give tax credits to investments in BL&P of $5,000 or less, or offer preference shares at 7 or 8 %. This is about greed plain and simple.


  28. I am so sorry I missed Roland Clarke’s contribution. Oversight on my part, but based on what I’ve gathered from his closing he is the key objector.! I goin’ back to de tapes!

    Now fah dis Barbados scholar, economist, lawyer ex-Governor of CDB. Why the fu#k do academics feel the need to be coy when responding to a people who oppose the normal course of business? Simple question .. Will the response from the Commission be the final meeting? Answer.. you (interveners) can make that determination.. ha ha ha…!

    What a f#cking BORE!


  29. The question can also be asked to Chairman how does he know the Intervenors who delivered closing arguments added value to the proceedings?

    An opinion on his part?

    Is he not suppose to sit with his fellow commissioners and determine value of submissions based on the relevance and empirical weight of the contributions?


  30. @David
    “Why have closing arguments if according to the Chairman the affidavits and other documents have become a matter of record and will be used to inform subsequent deliberation and final decision.”

    The fallacy goes a bit further than that. Why have cross examinations if you are going to rely on affidavits alone? Why have transcripts if you are not able to study them? It is good that the legislation provides for transcripts, however, if you take the chairman’s logic to the ultimate conclusion, why have hearings at all.

    The fact that the process is set out in legislation gives legitimacy to the idea of transparency and the fact that monopolies must be scrutinised in the interest of consumers. This is the underlying reason for the process; consumer scrutiny.

    Douglas Trotman made a salient point when he referred to section 52 which is a provision to allow for immediate closing remarks not as a rule that there should be closing remarks immediately after evidence. As a matter of fact if read carefully, the provision contemplates that third parties (public) would be given time, and if it is a case with very little materials that does not represent a great challenge for responses, then the chairman may allow the closing arguments to flow immediately after cross examinations.


  31. We did not lose anything by not making a closing presentation because as the chairman said, orals can have the effect of going through one ear and coming out the next.

    In any case, we have always relied on a written submission and not an oral ones, so it was easy for us to stick to the decision to protest. With written presentations, the Panel has review-ability of the objections and clarifications.

    The only intervenor I would probably forgive is Dr. Roland Clarke because his points were so important to bringing a different perspective and he had missed more than 75% of the hearing, but moreso because the first three intervenors broke ranks and we knew Errol Niles was also going to break ranks, it did not make any difference to the protest, plus it was so informative that the public deserved to hear him.

    Pity he could not get it all together, so all he could do was focus on a few points. I can tell you that he had about 3 more pages of notes that he could only fold as his time was up.

    He did not even get to mention the study by Stephen Worme done about 10 years ago; that had the company implemented, it would not need a rate increase today.


  32. @BAFBFP: “Oversight on my part, but based on what I’ve gathered from his closing he is the key objector.!

    I *completely* agree with you!

    Dr. Clarke has been incredibly insightful in showing how the Company has failed to do what I could have done, which would have avoided this request for additional returns.

    And to think Dr. Clarke almost resigned as an Intervenor when the Renewables issues were removed from this hearing!


  33. The above should have read:

    “Dr. Clarke has been incredibly insightful in showing how the Company has failed to do what *it* could have done, which would have avoided this request for additional returns.

  34. **Adviser to the President** Avatar
    **Adviser to the President**

    Thats good advice.But here is better advice.Grin and bear it. You cant do nothing about it.The increase is coming and we will all pay our share.


  35. An observation, here it is through the initiative of Chris and BANGO over 90% of the BL&P FTC Hearing was recorded and staged on Chris’ website with BU linking back. What should a progressive media do you ask? In the interest of informing the people wouldn’t you think there should be some collaboration?

    Even heard our favourite moderator who responsible for news gathering at VOB Stetson Babb making the point he has been following mainly via newspaper reports etc.

    God help us!


  36. As long as we allow media houses to determine what is newsworthy for us, we will only know what they want us to know.

    Given the importance of this issue to ordinary Bajans with small pockets, the coverage of this hearing, by those that claim they mandate and mission is to inform, was extremely poor.

    This whole episode looked like a conspiracy to ambush an unsuspecting public.


  37. @General Lee

    Is it unreasonable to expect that media in Barbados could have slotted 30 minute programs at minimum to analyze the days hearings?

    It is all about giving the people information in ways they can digest it. Yes a lot of the exchanges were technical but we have people who could have facilitated a people version. Instead we had to tolerate many callers and moderators giving the comments ‘ BL&P is a well managed company and deserves an increase’ God help us!


  38. @David

    Note that the recordings are also available on the BANGO community Information site at http://www.igloo.org/bangoonline.

    One of the disappointments was the streaming. Too many technical problems which were out of my control and the way the press box was located did not help.

    the biggest problem was a loop in the electrical circuits at sherbourne which created a loud hissing noise. I am told that this problem also exists at the Frank Collymore Hall.

    Of course the second problem was internet connectivity. We had to pay for our own internet, donated by Douglas Trotman, $250 for the week but the internet became more reliable only for the last 4 days when they decided to run it by cable rather than wireless because their wireless kept dropping out all the time.

    In terms of cooperation with CBC for the stream, I would have had to buy copies of every tape from them so that would have been after the fact. Plus, they did not tape the entire thing, they had one camera and used it to get cut-aways as well.

    Most of the radio reporters still using tape machines to record and no radio station did live broadcast.


  39. @ROK

    The bigger point BU is making has to do with transparency and education of our PEOPLE. The FTC is a government agency, the current government assumed office with a promise of FOI etc. Again here was an opportunity lost when a government institution could have departed from the past and made this exercise public. By giving our people information they become better positioned to make the best decisions. Your effort to stream the proceeding must be applauded in this context.


  40. For all the talk of a well managed, efficient company, I know of areas where blackouts are a regular occurrence.

    How much interest do they earn on excess revenue gleaned from overestimating your bill?

    What other company can get away with providing a service and then estimating your bill for months on end?

    How many people complain publicly about fluctuating bills, when their electricity consumption remains constant?
    Fuel charge? Yeah right.

    Who verifies that BL&P meters are working correctly?

    The BL&P’s PR department has created an image that the company is second to none in Barbados.

    The public has bought this image and now BL&P can do no wrong.


  41. David you keep assuming that those in authority want the people to be informed.

    How and why does CBC broadcasts Parliament debates live?


  42. Understand GL, the decision is driven mostly by political expediency. It is why we will always be highly critical of the media in Barbados who as part of The Estates of the Realm is suppose to be the great leveller. In the absence of information the PEOPLE will remain dumb to proceedings. David Thompson has a great opportunity in our history to depart fom the well trodden path. So far the POEPLE are still waiting.


  43. @David

    Agreed!


  44. NO!

    Please be reminded that the Prime Minister is a lawyer by profession, a fundamental/back-bone player in the Bureaucracy that maintains the way institutions operate in Barbados. He is, has been and will continue to thrive in the environment as it is. Politicians are NOT change agents. One of their primary responsibilities is to have simple majorities believe that they ARE about change (“That you can believe in”). Why believe that Thompy is any different?


  45. @ Christopher Halsall

    Do you agree that the Chairman is “a f#cking BORE” as well?

    …Ha ha ha…!


  46. @BAFBFP… Choosing my words very carefully…

    I, personally, am not convinced that the Chairman is doing all that he can to ensure that the Commission is fulfilling its Mission as aggressively, as proactively, as progressively, and, fundamentally, as well as it could and should….


  47. There are at least 11 radio stations in Barbados, how many have a significant news or current affairs program?

    Why are so many licences granted for radio stations and no one seem to be able to get one for television?

    Mr. Thompson should be aware that this is not acceptable in a progressive and enlightened society

    He has the power to rectify this state of affairs. Will he?

    We are so educated, we do not recognize the shackles they have placed on us.


  48. General Lee

    Those are some good points, perhaps the masses are not clamoring for significant News or Current Affairs programs. On the other hand “if you build it they would come”. The biggest issue that I have with a new license for a TV station is that the applicant on record already controls the major newspaper and one or two of those radio stations. I have a problem with the concentration of media outlets under single ownership. If you think people are complaining now about VOB or the Nation think of what would happen if they owned a TV station too


  49. I agree that they have not not shown themselves to be deserving of a licence, but are they the only applicants?

    One would think that more players would be interested, television being what it is.

    The newest of the 11 radio stations broadcasts BBC world service all day long. Obviously someone thinks that they is a need.

    How sad is that?


  50. General Lee, Sargeant
    To date One Caribbean is not a major charge on the Current Account. Give them a TV licence and they will be importing every conceivable piece of programming from abroad in a bid to gain advertising revenue. Foreign exchange will disappear..! T’ink dey give a shit…?

    These maggots will no spare a red penny to help fund the Caribbean News Agency; they would prefer to have governments foot de bill..!

The blogmaster invites you to join the discussion.

    Trending

    Discover more from Barbados Underground

    Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

    Continue reading