FortisBC Inc. (FortisBC) Application for a Certificate of Public ...

More specifically, it seems likely that the increased incidence of theft is tied to actions
taken by some municipalities, subsequent to the passage of the Act of 2006. Growers who
may have chosen to pay their electricity bills now know that their high levels of
consumption are more likely to be reported to local governments, and, ultimately, to
police. In this environment, theft of electricity reduces the risk of detection; the
unintended consequence of the Act appears to be an increase in theft. As Diplock and
Plecas note in their 2011 report, cited above, “…the proportion of growers stealing power
appears to be approximately 52%, which is more than double the proportion reported by
Plecas et al. (2005), based on information from 1997 to 2003.”
If Fortis BC was to resist AMI deployment and local governments in the region were to
simultaneously embrace the Act of 2006, a worst case scenario seems likely to emerge.
The number of growers in the region would increase, given knowledge of the lack of
AMI deployment, and the majority would steal electricity, knowing that their high levels
of consumption would be reported by Fortis to local governments, and, in turn, to police.
If Fortis merely resisted AMI deployment and local governments continue to operate
without the Act of 2006, it is reasonable to conclude that more marijuana producers
would come into the Fortis area, as Fortis would become the only provincial energy
authority without AMI. The Fortis projections suggest a 40 per cent increase by 2016 in
the number of sites, with a rate of theft slightly greater than the current level of 20 per
cent. This figure probably contains more precision that we can be sure of; the range of
increase in these circumstances may be as low as 10 per cent, though I think a growth of
more than 40 per cent is unlikely. Given that the Act of 2006 is not at all uniformly
applied across the province, growers would not be motivated to come to Fortis in order to
operate their businesses, but only for the more specific objective of theft of electricity –
and as the cost of electricity does not dramatically impact the profitability of cannabis
production, this seems unlikely. Put differently, those who come would almost
exclusively be coming for the express purpose of theft, diminishing deterrent impacts of
the current theft program. I should add that the complete rollout of AMI by BC Hydro
remains uncertain, as some customers have, to date, been able to resist the technology.
Additionally, growers new to the region may act pre-emptively to avoid detection by
stealing, at least until they know that high load customers who pay their bills will not
ultimately be reported to the police. I would project a theft rate in excess of 50 per cent if
local governments within the Fortis BC area were to follow the actions taken by some
Lower Mainland municipalities in relation to the Act of 2006. Deterrence of theft would
decrease, and revenues for Fortis would, correspondingly, decrease.
AMI Deployment
Appendix BCUC IR1 86.1
The prediction that no more than 5 per cent of growers will steal under AMI cannot be
made with precision. It seems a virtual certainty that theft will decrease markedly under
AMI, but we cannot sure about a number of variables, most notably the extent and timing
of the AMI rollout throughout the rest of the province, as well as the resources that will
be put in place and available to the energy authority and to police to respond effectively
6