JPS Archives - Page 10 of 40 - SolarBuzz Jamaica

More Wind Energy Coming For National Grid By September

June 27, 2014 Webmaster

Yesterday, the Jamaica Public Service Company (JPS) signed an agreement to purchase wind energy from BMR Jamaica Wind Limited over a period of 20 years.

Under the terms of the agreement, the JPS also has the option to purchase 20 per cent interest in the project.

BMR Jamaica Wind is investing US$90 million in the project and the JPS says it has supported the venture by providing technical advice and vital wind data, from its own Munro Wind Farm.

According to the JPS, the project is a significant milestone in Jamaica’s energy security and diversification programme, and represents another important step toward reducing the cost of electricity.

Construction of the 34 megawatt wind farm will see 11 turbines being erected near Malvern, St Elizabeth, in proximity to the JPS Munro Wind Farm.

The JPS says the new wind farm is expected to save Jamaica 250,000 to 300,000 barrels of imported oil each year, or up to six million barrels of oil over the 20-year term of the agreement.

The project is also expected to create 90 to 120 new jobs during the construction, phase which begins in August 2014.

Commissioning is scheduled for September next year.

Jamaica Gleaner

Alternative Energy Electricity Energy Saving JPS News Solar Energy

Electricity Should Be Based On Long-Term Considerations

June 5, 2014 Webmaster

With reference to your headline article, ‘Solar power risk’ in The Gleaner Tuesday, June 3, I think that our policy decisions in relation to electricity should be based on long-term considerations, such as the amount of foreign exchange spent on fossil fuels, and the threat of global warming, rather than on return on investments.

My initial observation is that we have failed to capitalise on the opportunities provided by solar energy. Neither Jamaica Public Service (JPS) nor the Office of Utilities Regulation has educated the public on the win-win situation, which is possible with net-billing. More people might be interested in applying for net-billing if the application process were quicker, and the steps involved, detailed instructions for which are given on JPS website, were less onerous. Most people are unaware that you do not need batteries to run a solar system if you have a grid-tie with JPS. In fact, going that route is more environmentally friendly and less expensive, as shown by the calculation below.

BUYING BATTERIES

On the whole, companies selling solar systems encourage purchasers to buy batteries. Their pitch is that you can cut your electricity bills and even get off the grid entirely. They also tell you that JPS pays you only half of what you pay JPS per kWh, which is true, but they don’t tell you that batteries would cost more. Also, most people use more electricity in the summer than in the winter. To get off the grid entirely, one would have to install sufficient panels to supply one’s summer needs, and then one would have excess in the winter. It would be better to be able to send the excess to the grid in the winter and draw from JPS if necessary in the summer.

My calculation is based on a monthly average of 200 kWh being sent to JPS in the day, and drawn from JPS at night. (It does not include the excess amounts being sent or drawn). Nor does it take into account escalating costs. I make the optimistic assumption that a battery bank will last for 10 years.

WITHOUT SOLAR PANELS

200 kWh x J$40 = $8,000 monthly x 12 = $96,000 annually x10 years = $960,000.00

With solar panels and net billing (cost corresponding to half of $40.00)

200 kWh x $20 = $4,000 monthly x 12 = 48,000 annually x 10 years = $480,000.00

Savings: $480,000.00

With batteries, no net-billing, cost would be $0, but cost of 16 batteries at $40,000.00 each with life expectancy 10 years max = $640,000.

In contrast, as Mr John Kistle states, JPS would be faced with the challenge of providing everybody with electricity at peak hours after sunset, or on overcast days. Some of that generating capacity would have to be turned off at peak sunshine hours, thus reducing the return on whatever investment was made in a new power plant. However, solar power would cut down on the amount of fuel needed to run the plant.

Given the importance of the cost of electricity to all of us in Jamaica, perhaps there are some other things we can do. Could there be a consensus, for example, on turning off our fridges during peak hours? Or JPS charging different rates at peak hours?

I think that all stakeholders need to be involved in making these hard decisions.

Jamaica Gleaner;

Electricity Government JPS News

Stealing With Impunity

May 16, 2014 Webmaster

We share the concerns of paying customers of the Jamaica Public Service Company (JPS) whose electricity will be turned off for half the day in the JPS’s latest effort to combat electricity theft. Yet, we can’t but empathise with the light and power company, the stealing of a large chunk of whose output is enabled by an irresolute State and compliant politicians.

Put another way, by maintaining an environment that insulates the thieves, the Government has up to now forced JPS to provide social welfare to dwellers of poor communities, which is like imposing a tax on the company for earnings it doesn’t make.

JPS is the sole distributor of electricity in Jamaica. It is a majority ownership by Japanese and Korean interests, representing substantial foreign direct investment – something, given Jamaica’s economic circumstance, our Government declares it is keen to encourage.

For years, JPS has been confronted with the theft of its service. Of the 28 per cent of the output that it ‘lost’ in 2013, 60 per cent went to thieves, translating to hundreds of millions of dollars of unrecovered revenue. Such thievery is often rationalised as the result of the high price of electricity and that it is perpetrated by poor people against a supposedly rich company. The Robin Hood syndrome!

That argument is an inadequate response to the fundamental issues at stake. For instance, with shareholder equity of around US$1 billion, the company’s US$9 million in profit last year represented return on investment of less than one per cent.

Moreover, in the past financial year, the company’s receivables, at 90 days or more, at US$64 million, were approximately six per cent of its operating revenue. Since other customers are unlikely to have been allowed to owe JPS for so long, we can assume that the debt is largely the Government’s, to which must be added the company’s enforced social-welfare expenditure in the form of electricity theft.

That’s not all. That overdue debt has not only cash-flow implications for JPS, but foreign-exchange risks, given that while the company’s income is in Jamaican dollars, the bulk of its expenditure is in foreign currency. Such risks are exacerbated by the company’s declining revenues, which would likely cause unease to the company’s bankers and impact its ability to borrow for new plant and equipment. JPS is hardly in robust health.

Illegal connections removed

Indeed, no company anywhere could be asked to forgo, or hand over as welfare, the value of nearly a fifth of its output. Few could survive. JPS has tried to combat the problem by having 200 employees, or about 15 per cent of its staff, dedicated to the anti-theft effort. Last year, it removed 197,000 illegal connections, approximately one-third of the amount of its registered customer base – from its system. These and other technological solutions have failed to beat the problem. And they won’t.

The solution is primarily political. Indeed, the seven communities against which the JPS has moved, in the capital’s western belt and St Catherine, like others where electricity theft is endemic, are mostly garrison communities, those zones of exclusion where our brand of politics breeds a sense of entitlement and impunity.

That perceived right to trespass on other people’s property can’t be solved by single companies taking civil action or proffering criminal charges. It demands a fundamental shift of political attitudes, combined with a resolute State, especially if the Government is serious about encouraging investment – local or foreign.

Jamaica Gleaner;

Electricity Government JPS News

How come?

May 13, 2014 Webmaster

OUR wants JPS to say why power being cut in some communities

How comes

THE Office of Utilities Regulation (OUR) has summoned Jamaica Public Service Company (JPS) officials to a meeting today as public anger grows over the company’s decision to cut the number of hours that power is provided to some communities in an effort to combat electricity theft.

The regulator said it requested the meeting after being alerted about the matter by its Consumer Affairs Unit, which received complaints from the public, as well as JPS’s own news release on the issue yesterday.

According to the JPS, it took the decision as part of a strategy to get more persons in communities where more than 70 per cent of the power is stolen to pay for the electricity they use, and reduce the overall cost to paying customers.

“The communities to be affected in the initial phase of this curtailment strategy are Jones Town, Seaward Drive, Trench Town, Denham Town, Rema, Maxfield Avenue, Central Village, and Spanish Town Road,” JPS said, adding that it “has been working with these communities for some time, with limited success, and continues to encourage illegal users to take immediate steps to have their service regularised”.

“We have tried everything to reduce electricity theft,” the JPS release quoted Gary Barrow, the company’s senior vice-president for energy delivery.

“Our efforts have included a combination of initiatives, such as the removal of illegal ‘throw up’ lines, account audits and meter investigations, arrests in collaboration with the police, community intervention, and the installation of costly technology solutions. The company also has more than 200 employees working to reduce losses,” Barrow said.

The company, which some years ago launched a compliance campaign with the tag line ‘How Come?’, explained that in 2013 it removed more than 197,000 illegal lines, carried out more than 113,000 account audits and meter investigations, and facilitated the arrest of more than 1,200 persons for electricity theft.

It also said that it has installed more 7,600 Residential Automated Metering Infrastructure meters, but most of the potential customers targeted have not signed up for legal service.

According to the power company, its efforts to serve paying customers in communities with high levels of theft continue to be hampered by extensive damage to its equipment and ongoing power outages caused by illegal connections.

“Customers also suffer significant damage to their appliances and equipment as a result of the system overload caused by illegal connections,” JPS said.

As such, the company said that it “will make an effort to provide electricity for not less than 12 hours per day, and will remain sensitive to the safety concerns of the residents”.

The firm added that it “was also making every effort to minimise the impact on businesses, hospitals, and schools in these communities”.

In a letter to the JPS yesterday, the OUR asked for “critical information, such as the number of paying residential and commercial customers in the affected areas, and the alleged level of damage done to JPS equipment as a result of electricity theft in these communities”.

The OUR said it was treating this issue with the highest priority, given the impact on legitimate customers in these communities.

Jamaica Observer;

Electricity Government JPS News

JPS goes after $10-b annual return

April 17, 2014 Webmaster

Electricity distributor seeks up to 93% rate hike

JPS goes after $10-b annual return

JAMAICA Public Service Company (JPS) is hoping to clear US$94-million ($10.3 billion) profit a year should its proposed rate hike be approved.

The light and power company applied to the Office of Utilities Regulations (OUR) for a raft of changes to its non-fuel tariff (the rate that recovers cost associated with transmitting and distributing electricity rather than generating it).

Residential customers will see the monthly charge for network access (which up to now has been called the customer charge) increase by a range of 70 per cent to 420 per cent, depending on usage, if JPS gets its way.

What’s more, the monopoly electricity distributor hopes to raise the non-fuel, or energy charge to households by a range of 48 per cent to 93 per cent, moving from the lower end of the range to the higher end, the more electricity is used.

For commercial customers, the rates for which JPS has applied, decreases with higher usage, supposedly to promote greater use of electricity for business purposes.

On the other hand, the utility proposes a 65 per cent increase for the smallest commercial users, while enterprises can’t realise a decrease in the overall rate until they have consumed some 140,000 kilowatt-hours (kWh).

Indeed, the utility devised creative ways of encouraging more efficient consumption, such as recommending to the regulator that it altogether remove the non-fuel rate charged to large industrial customers.

That would see JPS give up just under $5 billion in revenue, which it would earn back from proposed increases to the demand charge that are applied to bills of consumers with heavy-duty electric machinery.

When factoring in the fuel charge, the rate hikes might not seem so daunting.

JPS figures that using a fuel rate of 23 US cents per kWh, the residential tariff increases, on average, by 22 per cent. Most commerical customers, or 98 per cent of them would see an average increase of 16 per cent, using the same math.

Of course, the proposed non-fuel tariff rates coupled with the fuel rates would put the cost of electricity at 45 US cents per kWh for the average household and 43 US cents per kWh for the overwhelming majority of commercial customers.

In its latest five-year tariff review application, JPS rationalised that it accumulated net profit of US$96 million, or an average of US$24 milion a year, from 2010 to 2013.

“The target profit for JPS, allowed (not guaranteed) through the revenue requirement, has never been achieved, representing an allowed return on equity (ROE) of 16 per cent that was approved in 2009, which should have resulted in a net profit of approximately US$43 million per annum”, said JPS of its profit performance over the tariff period that recently ended.

High system losses over the period factored heavily in its shortfall.

The utility company estimated that it was not allowed to recover US$111 million in fuel costs due to penalties from 2009 to 2013.

“The magnitude of the penalty varies with the price of oil and the risk exposure was amplified with the spike in the price of oil over the past two years,” said the light and distribution company. “At the end of 2013 losses, technical (8.6 per cent) and non-technical (largely theft –18.04 per cent), stood at a total of 26.64 per cent.”

Jamaica Observer;

News

Energy World does fine line in hot air, but not much LNG

October 5, 2013 Webmaster

Below is a repost from our newsletter that went on Sept. 21 2013 when we all thought Energy World International had won the 360MW bid. Well they’re back ladies and gentlemen so below is an article you should read.

HAS anybody seen an LNG facility lying about? We seem to be missing a couple of liquefied natural gas plants. In this corner of the universe, the mighty Energy World Corporation has more LNG projects on the boil than BHP.
Rivalling the oil majors Chevron and Shell, it has three in Australia, and one project each in Indonesia, the Philippines and Papua New Guinea – according to its presentation materials to the stock exchange – but Energy World’s sharemarket value remains a paltry $737 million. Why is this so?
Either this stock is the greatest bargain since Woodside was a penny dreadful or somebody has been purloining its LNG plants. They are nowhere to be seen. Can there be any other explanation?
One vile and unseemly character has made the scurrilous allegation that Energy World keeps on raising money to build the same LNG plant.

It will never actually build an LNG plant, claims this dastardly off-the-record source. It just says it is building an LNG plant to raise money from unsuspecting sharemarket dabblers.
Surely it was time to rise and defend the honour of Energy World, impugned as it was by such pusillanimous and despicable innuendo.
Alas, our petitions for an audience with chief executive Stewart Elliott at the group’s global headquarters in Hong Kong were to fall on deaf ears. Neither Stewart, nor his crack Energy World team, was available to respond either by phone or email.

How was its ”successful Alice Springs LNG operation” with the Northern Territory Power and Water Corp getting along? We called the NTPWC. ”We no longer have an LNG contract with them.”
How about Energy World’s planned 2-5-million-tonne plant proposed for the Western Province of Papua New Guinea, along with a deep-water port and power station? This development appeared to have been accidentally located – at least in a company presentation – on acreage already pegged by US oil group Talisman.
We called Talisman. ”Regarding your inquiry, we would like to inform you that Talisman has no arrangements with Energy World.”
That was peculiar. The tie-up had been mentioned in the PNG press and an editor told us, ”EWC clearly put Talisman’s part-owned fields in its presentation.”
Energy World rather got ahead of itself in late 2007 when it told shareholders it was ”building” its first LNG plant in Indonesia. It had just raised $100 million with the aid of its trusty broker Tricom Securities.
The following year, it returned to raise another $156 million from the mums and dads. ”Our first 500,000 tonnes per annum LNG liquefaction facility remains on target for production in the last quarter 2009,” was the line.
It banked a further $86.5 million in a share sale to investment guru Richard Chandler last year. The money did not go to waste. Some $200 million left the company in ”property, plant and equipment” payments in 2008 and 2009. Roughly $40 million went to Slipform Engineering (H.K.) Ltd, a company incorporated in the British Virgin Islands and wholly owned by the Energy World chief himself, Stewart Elliott.
Energy World’s latest annual report makes for an interesting read, particularly the related party deals in the rear of the Ernst & Young-audited accounts.
There is a $2.34 million fee for ”executive management services” paid to Energy World’s major shareholder, Energy World International (EWI). EWI is also owned by Stewart. But that’s just for starters.
EWI must have a property division, too, as it leases a couple of properties to Energy World, one being an apartment in Sydney’s leafy Seaforth for $6000 a month.
In true Demtelian spirit there is also a raft of other payments to Slipform: all up $13.4 million departing Energy World in the direction of Stewart’s private companies for ”engineering services” and so forth.
And Stewart’s services must be indispensable, as it appears Energy World has since struck another $US618 million worth of contracts with a suite of Stewart’s companies. More related-party transactions than a Greek wedding, in short.
The good thing for Stewart is that if Energy World ever went bust paying lavish consultancy fees to his other companies, Stewart would still be standing front and centre in the creditors’ queue clutching a humungous proof of debt. Were this to transpire, he would be agreeably placed to claim ownership again of the very LNG equipment he had already sold, and perhaps then vend it into another exciting opportunity to list on the stockmarket.

Perhaps Energy World could try its luck with an LNG plant in the basement of 100 Market Street, Sydney, below the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. An ASIC liquefaction facility would complement its portfolio of projects nicely. Although we must confess the latter, projects that is, have been hard to find.
The South Australian Chamber of Mines and Energy didn’t know anything about the LNG plant proposed for Port Bonython. Nor was the relevant state agency or Quilpie Shire Council aware of Energy World’s impending LNG plant in Gilmore in Queensland.

Finally, though, there were traces of EWC LNG DNA. Upon inquiry into the touted Phase I, 2MTPA LNG plant and 500k pipe proposed development at Abbot Point we got this: ”Energy World Corporation (EWC) is known to the office of the Queensland Co-ordinator-General and EWC is discussing a proposal with officers that relates to Abbot Point. The next steps in progressing this proposal rest with EWC.” Take that, vile sceptics!

EWC’s claims have been greatly exaggerated and, although the company has been unable to deliver on its promises and properly inform the market, it is fair to point out that its claims to build an LNG facility in Indonesia are fair dinkum. For the benefit of EWC shareholders, here is an email received overnight from the chief financial officer of Chart Industries in the US:

I can confirm that Chart received a purchase order in June 2007 covering the LNG liquefaction process design together with the supply of proprietary equipment including Cold Boxes, Brazed Aluminum Heat Exchangers, Air Cooled Heat Exchangers and ancillary equipment for four (4) 500,000 tons/year LNG Liquefaction Trains to be installed by EWC in Southeast Asia. The purchase order value was in excess of USD $100 million. The equipment was delivered to EWC on various dates commencing November 2008 with the final piece of equipment delivered in early 2012.
Subsequent to receipt of the above purchase order, Chart and EWC signed a Strategic Alliance Agreement in August 2007 to jointly pursue additional LNG liquefaction projects that EWC will build, own and operate. This Agreement remains in place at this time.

Chart has also provided a similar scope of equipment to EWC for a smaller 160 tons/dayLNG Liquefaction project to be installed by EWC in Australia. This equipment was delivered mid 2011.

Should Business Day receive responses to questions from EWC claims relating to the central Australian operation and PNG operations these will be published.

Alternative Energy Electricity Government JPS LNG News Solar Energy

The Future Of Power In Jamaica

September 25, 2013 Webmaster

Is there an energy problem in Jamaica? The growing energy crisis in Jamaica has been a cause for concern ever since the Government divested the Jamaica Public Service Company (JPS).

Consumers and producers complain about the high cost of energy. Firms often blame their low productivity, low output, high price for final goods and services, as well as low profitability, on the high cost of energy in Jamaica.

The lowest consumers pay in Jamaica is $40, or US39 cents per kilo watt hour, compared to the United States where energy cost is as low as 12 cents per kilo watt hour in some places.

Jamaica consumes approximately 605 mega watts of energy per day. The country has the capacity to produce in excess of 700 mega watts per day from the old, inefficient power plants across the island. However, plans are being put in place to replace 475 mega watts of our daily usage with cleaner, more efficient sources; a 360-mega watt plant and 155 mega watts from renewable sources including, but not limited to, solar, wind mill and hydro. These two projects combined, are expected to reduce the cost of energy to the consumer by 25 to 30 per cent by 2016.

What is being done about the issue?

The winner of the bid to establish the renewable-energy sources has not yet been announced, but Azurest Cambridge Consortium has won the bid to possibly build this new energy plant that will supply 360 mega watts of Jamaica’s daily usage.

The estimated cost, including buildings, barges, the plant and other infrastructure is US$690 million. Total cost, minus labour, is estimated to be US$580 million. In total, the plant will use three barges, the first barge will be delivered 17 months after Azurest and JPS sign off on a power-purchase agreement. Negotiation are expected to start within the next three weeks, and should take about three to four months.

Azurest plans to sell the energy to JPS, at a price between 13 and 22 cents US per kilo watt hour, earning no more than 20 per cent return on its investment.

The US$100 million core equity committed to project, with hopes of raising US$50 million locally, and the rest overseas, in a 78 per cent to 22 per cent debt-equity ratio.

How will they finance the rest?

The International Finance Corporation plans to raise funds to possibly support the establishment of the 360 mega watt-power plant project in Jamaica, by issuing bonds on the domestic market.

IFC plans to raise US$500 million, or J$51 billion, from the issue. The bonds will have a triple-A rating and will be targeted at pension funds, banks and other investors. The bonds will also carry lower interest rates than the Bank of Jamaica Treasury Bill Rates.

This strategy to raise funds is not new as it was employed in the Dominican Republic to raise approximately US $10 million to fuel two micro-finance operations in the country. The IFC is unsure as to the exact date these bonds will reach the market, but know it will occur during the course of Jamaica’s four-year agreement with the IMF.

Upon establishment of the plant, Azurest will sell all the energy it produces to the JPS, who operate both a monopoly and a monopsony market.

What is a monopoly market?

This is a situation where there is only one seller of goods and/or services in the market. There is no competition as other firms cannot enter the market freely due to barriers to entry.

In this case, based on JPS’s contract with the Government, no other firm can supply electricity in Jamaica.

Given that JPS is the only supplier in the market, if unregulated; it can charge any price it desires. The company usually charges a price higher and supply less than what is efficient.

What is a monopsony market?

A monopsony market is the other way around, instead of one sell such as the case with the monopoly, in this case there is only one buyer of goods and/or services.

JPS is the only company that buys energy in Jamaica. Any company can produce energy, but given that JPS is the only distributor of electricity, it is the only company that buys energy.

In this case, if unregulated once more, the JPS can push the cost price down because there are no other firms in this purchasers market.

Who regulates?

In Jamaica, The Office of Utilities Regulation monitors JPS’s activities.

It regulates and prevents any abuse of monopoly and/or monopsony power that the JPS might be tempted to exercise.

The Jamaica Gleaner;

Electricity Government JPS News

JPS surprised at controversial street light resolution passed by KSAC

September 13, 2013 Webmaster

‘Strange’

THE Jamaica Public Service (JPS) has expressed ‘surprise’ at Tuesday’s passing of a resolution by the Kingston and St Andrew Corporation that seeks to have Corporate Area residents pay for the repair and replacement of street lights.

According to the light and power company, a resolution of that nature warrants consultations with the company, as a number of issues would have to be resolved before any such change could be made.

“I find it strange that they would move a resolution without us doing the research and getting back to them. We don’t have an adversarial relationship, we are accessible to all the councillors, they have our cell numbers and we respond to all their complaints, including street lights,” Jennifer McKurdy, JPS parish manager for Kingston and St Andrew North, told the Jamaica Observer on Wednesday.

McKurdy said that both he and the manager for JPS Kingston and St Andrew South attended last week’s KSAC Roads and Works Committee meeting, and were asked if it would be possible for private citizens to fix their own street lights. She said that they had promised to research the issue and respond but, before they were able to do so, the resolution was passed.

Meanwhile, JPS communications boss Winsome Callum told the Observer Monday night that, currently, there is no restriction on people who live some distance away from the main, or where electricity is unavailable, to go into the JPS office and work out an arrangement.

The process is usually for a certified contractor to install a street light at their home or in their community, and have it passed by the JPS. The owner of the property then becomes responsible for the bills and the maintenance of that light. However, she said that private citizens being responsible for the service or repair of streets lights in areas for which the KSAC is responsible is a totally different matter, requiring intense discussions on how it can be approached.

The resolution is one of the most controversial to be passed by the current KSAC administration, led by Mayor Angela Brown Burke. It was opposed by minority Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) members of the council, as well as three People’s National Party (PNP) councillors who abstained from voting. The resolution was eventually passed by a 16-10 majority.

The Observer reported Tuesday that PNP councillor Ian Telfer (Hughenden) had tabled a motion in the Council, seeking to have the public contribute more to maintaining street lights by paying for the repairs.

This would be in addition to some $3.4 billion from recently increased property tax, which generates revenue the Government and the councils use to pay for the street lights and garbage collection. However, despite the heavy increase in property taxes in April, both services continue to suffer from underfunding.

In his motion, Telfer said that the KSAC has been having “major challenges” in keeping the street lights in the Corporate Area operational. He noted that some private citizens, on occasions, have paid for repairs and replaced defective lights with “lights of their own”, but that these were eventually removed by the JPS.

He admitted that neither the KSAC nor the JPS can allow private citizens to add street lights to the grid as this would create “greater problems of maintenance and accountability, in addition to increasing operational costs”, but insisted in his motion that the KSAC should “mandate” the JPS to accept payments from private citizens.

Telfer said that there were instances where citizens have paid to repair or replace street lights, but the JPS said that the practice is illegal.

JLP councillor Vernon McLeod (Havendale) said that the JPS should find cash flow “to fund its business if it wants to stay in business”.

“The KSAC should penalise the JPS, and don’t pay them if they don’t provide the service,” McLeod said.

Another JLP councillor, Duane Smith (Chancery Hall), said that the resolution would set a dangerous precedent, and could open the floodgates for citizens to be asked to pay for other public services for which they are already taxed.

“It is quite obvious that the councillor is trying to remove the burden and responsibility of maintaining the street lights from the KSAC, and placing them squarely on the shoulders of the public. And what is most unfortunate about it is that it seems to have the backing of members who should know better,” Smith said.

Councillor Delroy Williams (JLP, Seivright Gardens) said that support of the resolution would be a reward for negligence on the part of the JPS. He said the KSAC should move aggressively to get the JPS to carry out its responsibilities.

His PNP colleague, Councillor Karl Blake (Greenwich Town), who seconded the motion, said that it could not be illegal for citizens to help to secure their communities. But, PNP Councillor Eugene Kelly (Whitfield Town), who abstained, said that while the motion had a good intention, citizens were already paying property tax, out of which the JPS was paid by the KSAC for the street lights.

“The JPS is paid hundreds of millions of dollars for the street lights, and if they don’t meet their obligation they should be sued,” Kelly said.

Another PNP councillor, Kevin Taylor (Duhaney Park), who also abstained, said that if citizens were to pay for the repair of street lights, they should be able to have the payment deducted from their property tax.

Jamaica Observer;

Electricity Government JPS News

JPS surprised at controversial street light resolution passed by KSAC

September 13, 2013 jrobinson

‘Strange’

According to the light and power company, a resolution of that nature warrants consultations with the company, as a number of issues would have to be resolved before any such change could be made.

Telfer said that there were instances where citizens have paid to repair or replace street lights, but the JPS said that the practice is illegal.

JLP councillor Vernon McLeod (Havendale) said that the JPS should find cash flow “to fund its business if it wants to stay in business”.

“The KSAC should penalise the JPS, and don’t pay them if they don’t provide the service,” McLeod said.

“The JPS is paid hundreds of millions of dollars for the street lights, and if they don’t meet their obligation they should be sued,” Kelly said.

Jamaica Observer;

Alternative Energy Electricity Government JPS News

OUR Puts Brakes On Power Wheeling

August 23, 2013 Webmaster

The Office of Utilities Regulation (OUR) has halted the scheduled implementation of electricity wheeling to allow the Jamaica Public Service Company Limited (JPS) to make an application to the Electricity Appeal Tribunal.

This means that the OUR will not begin to process applications for wheeling this month, as was scheduled.

A statement from the OUR today said the JPS requested that the regulator put a stop the process, pending the hearing of its appeal.

The grounds of appeal have not been revealed.

In return for the OUR

1 … 8 9 10 11 12 … 40