12-04-2015, 07:34 PM
(12-04-2015, 07:25 PM)MidTowner Wrote:(12-04-2015, 05:50 PM)timc Wrote: That kind of pricing makes sense to me. A lot of the infrastructure costs are going to be the same regardless of consumption levels. If the billing is based purely on consumption, then you run into the situation that we have where people feel that they are being punished for conservation. More conservation means less water is used, reducing revenue, which means that rates need to go up to pay for fixed costs.
It's not a bad point, but in that case, the fixed charges should be tied to the amount of infrastructure actually used. If you have a reserve charge intended to cover the cost of the infrastructure, but that charge is the same for (say) the account of a large suburban home or of a unit in a building that has separate water meters, the latter is clearly subsidizing the former.
It appears that Waterloo does differentiate in this regard.
In any case, I do wonder whether these reserve/service charges are included (by The Record and others) when comparing water/sewer costs -- they do make a difference.