BP-Hell (BPL) 70% Bill Increase - A Case Study On Poor Statistical Interpretation Feeding

Public Fury - BY Charles Hamilton

November 6th, 2018 - Another week and another controversy appears to engulf Bahamas
Power and Light (BPL) and the Bahamian public in a heated exchange about sustainable (and
affordable) energy generation.

A news article titled “​Electricity bills will continue to climb​” notes in it’s lead paragraph:
“Electricity bills at Bahamas Power and Light (BPL) have risen in some instances to 70 per cent,
according to BPL Chairman Donavan Moxey.”

The CEO states: “The bills now have jumped significantly, my own personal bill has increased
by 60 per cent, this past month has been fairly high, it’s probably been the highest it has ever
been”.

Dr. Moxey provides a litany of reasons for the cost increases at BPL. However, regardless of the
explanations, I empathize with the many Bahamians who struggle to meet daily (and monthly)
expenses, including electricity bills. This is not welcomed news for me or my family.

As public health practitioner, I strongly believe in the ​positive health and social impacts​ that can
be gained from a shift in fossil fuel to renewable & sustainable energy use in our country
(improved air and water quality, decrease in greenhouse gases, ​reduction of climate change
impacts​, increased funding for available for health, etc).

BUT, as a social scientist, this article is about the importance of using statistics in
communication with the public.
In my field of public health and communication, we constantly utilize statistics to make it easier
for the public to understand complex data, trends or situations. Misleading or misuse of statistics
(or their interpretation) can pose a significant danger to the casual observer (or in my case, a
policy maker) - if it results in the observer making informed or harmful decisions based on the
misrepresented data.

We have seen this in case of our neighbours to the North and their President, who has
misinterpreted, misrepresented (​or simply made up statistics​) in order to elicit a certain response
from his base.

However, before getting into my analysis of this Bahamian incident - I want to clarify that I am
neither attacking the Bahamian public, who rightfully should be upset by any continuing rise in
their electricity bills NOR is this an attack on the press, who I respect as colleagues who have to
work in a very difficult environment. This is a critique on the communication of statistics to the
public, how this impacts interpretation of the data by public and how quickly decision making
can spiral in the face of missing data.

The first time I heard about this 70% increase in electricity bills facing Bahamians, was through
a ​petition​ sent my way to demand that the Government of The Bahamas and Executives of BPL
provide relief to Bahamians, who can not afford such a huge increase in electricity costs, on the
back of increasing taxes.

My first response was to ask, where was the source of this data? This is something that we do
not do often as people, particularly in the digital media age. I immediately, tried to find a press
release, a report, something in writing that links to this quoted statistic. I eventually found the
news article - quoted a few paragraphs above.

Then I tired to take note of any changes to kilowatter per hour (kwh) fuel surcharge fluctuations
across 2018. I confirmed the following from another Bahamian ​news source​ (reconciled with my
own BPL bills): “​The fuel surcharge has steadily increased this year. In the February billing
period it was 14.75 cents per kilowatt hour (kwh); in the March cycle it was 14.9 cents per
kwh; in April, the surcharge rose to 15.68 cents per kwh; in May, it jumped to 17.46 per kwh;
in June, it was 17.38 cents per kwh; in July, the surcharge per kwh was 19.46 cents; and in
the August and September billing periods it was 19.15 cents per kwh. In October, it was
also 19.15 cents.”

The 70% statistic being quoted and fueling the fury of the Bahamian public can be viewed as a
statistical fallacy​ (i.e. when a statistical reason involved is false or misapplied) without thinking
about the following information.

1. What is the fuel surcharge for the month of November?

Most persons will have only received electricity bills that account for usage during the period
September to October 2018. The fuel surcharge has remained unchanged for the past 3 months
(August - October).

Is Dr. Donavan stating that the fuel surcharge has increased 70% compared to the previous
billing period, to 32.55 cents per kwh, therefore, this will be reflected in a person’s bill?

Without the exact the fuel surcharge being communicated to the public - one cannot have a
better understanding of how much their bill may increase (due to this factor), and therefore, is
fueling anger and disappointment in the public.

In the absence of this information, a up to 70% increase of bills being linked to a fuel surcharge
can be seen as a ​false causality​, a statistical error when we incorrectly assume, an event
directly affects another event, when in actuality an intermediate effect is the cause.

For example: i.e. Event A (Higher Fuel Surcharge) → Event B (Higher Electricity Bill). We falsely
assume that it is solely due to the increased use of expensive fuel by BPL, which is directly
passed onto a customer, that will lead to a 70% increase in our electricity bills.

However, i.e. Event C (kwh usage = the intermediate factor) → Event A (higher fuel surcharge)
→ Event B (higher electricity bill). The only way to make a direct comparison that electricity bills
will go up by 70% is if kwh usage remained the same compared to the last billing period and fuel
surcharge rates increased by 70%, therefore, we can directly (and correctly) identify this as the
main factor for the increase in our bills.

Otherwise, an assumption based without the above data is inaccurate.

2. When exactly is Dr. Donovan directly quoted saying BPL bills will increase by
70%? Does Dr. Donovan’s % bill increase = your bill’s % increase for November?

A direct quote from the CEO provides anecdotal information from the CEO about his own
electricity bill which has supposedly gone up by 60%. Did Dr. Donovan’s kwh usage increase or
decrease in the past month? We don’t know, we just know it was the highest he has reportedly
ever have.

The use of the 60% or 70% statistic in this case an overgeneralization (a statistical fallacy),
when a particular statistic from one group is used to be applied to the whole population.

Dr. Donovan’s experience is his own experience, and unless, we can understand both the fuel
surcharge value for the month of October and a representative sampling of Bahamian electricity
bills for the month, it is not accurate to assume that everyone’s bills will increase by the same
rate.
Conclusion

I reiterate, regardless of the reasons for the increase of electricity bills in The Bahamas - the
rates remain too high and pose a significant challenge to the growth, health and development of
our country.

I am proud to see Bahamians embracing digital media and online petitions to try and generate
positive dialogue and social change in our country - expanding our role in the civil discourse and
governance in our nation.

The media, technocrats and politicians have important roles to play in how they communicate
statistics to public - in understanding how it will be interpreted by a layperson.

And public must continue to challenge each other - when you see a statistic being quoted or
shared to take into account, if it is being used as an overgeneralization or false causality for an
event happening in your community.