Still to hear from TTEC

It is to be noted that while the RIC made a final determination of the maximum charges, we are still to hear from TTEC what it proposes to charge within that limit.

The determination also retained the bi-monthly billing cycle and turned back TTEC’s request for a monthly bill.

As can be seen from the attached rates payment table which includes the $6.00 customer charge and Vat, low use households (under 100 KWH) are still paying more per unit, because of the impact of the customer charge.

The RIC process of consultation is also to be commended, although there is still need for capacity building among consumers especially households to represent and articulate their interest.

This consultation process also needs to be institutionalised, through the appointment of the required consumer committees of the RIC, and not only occur when there is a rate review, which will now take place annually. For example there is still need for clarification of some of the miscellaneous charges. In particular the “Visit for non payment of account” ( $234), which is separate from the “disconnection” ($118) and “reconnection after disconnection” ($118).

I am pleased that the ill-conceived disaster preparedness tax has been removed and another method found to deal with that contingency. The gas price issue has not been resolved and there is need for continued advocacy and lobbying for an energy policy that prioritises natural gas use for domestic purposes, including electricity, over use by large foreign users such as the proposed smelter plants.

Manu models of low income relief need to be studied for cost and impact before it is introduced.

There remains a need for incentives to householders and commercial users for energy conservation and for use of renewable sources. The order should have required TTEC to do that over and above their cost saving incentives