Conflict over Olympic Village energy bills continues to heat up
As theGeorgia Straight went to press on September 21, uncertainty continued to linger over how the conflict over energy charges at the Olympic Village would be resolved. The dispute has pitted low-income tenants and seniors on subsidy against the City of Vancouver, a housing-management group, and a private billing company.
Earlier in the week, it looked like it was going down to this: either the residents would pay up or they’d get evicted.
“They’re not giving us even one concession, not a thing,” Pam Burge complained in a phone interview with the Straight on September 19.
Burge is a resident at 80 Walter Hardwick Avenue, a social-housing facility that has been advertised as a net-zero building. This means that it is supposed to be not only a model of energy efficiency, but also one that produces as much or even more energy than it consumes.
However, Burge and a number of residents have protested that they are being zapped with enormous energy charges that are being billed by Enerpro Systems Corp., a North Vancouver–based company.
For example, Burge, who lives alone in a one-room apartment, got an Enerpro bill for the period April 7 to April 30 for $85.16, which included an activation charge of $28. The bill covered heating, hot water, cooling, and cold water.
Residents at the Olympic Village also get a separate bill from B.C. Hydro for their electricity consumption.
Burge has maintained that residents were not made aware of Enerpro and the energy bills levied on top of the rent they have to pay, which is 30 percent of their incomes.
COHO Property Management Society operates 80 Walter Hardwick and another social-housing facility at 122 Walter Hardwick, as well as a housing cooperative at 151 West 1st Avenue, on behalf of the city.
COHO had previously informed residents that the City of Vancouver would cover their energy costs from June to August 2011 as concerns over Enerpro bills were being sorted out.
Enerpro billings will resume this month. At a meeting called by COHO on September 15, residents of 80 Walter Hardwick were told that they’ll receive the new invoices by October.
Present at the meeting were COHO executive director Thom Armstrong and Jennifer Standeven, assistant director of business operations in the city’s community services group.
In an interview on September 19, Armstrong told the Straight: “The tenancy agreements are very clear that utilities are not included in the rent. I hope that once everyone has thought about it, they’ll realize that paying for utilities is an obligation that they have. If they don’t, then ultimately we would have to seek the remedies that are available under the tenancy agreement.”
Asked about the range of remedies COHO may utilize, Armstrong responded: “We have to send notice demanding payment. Ultimately, I guess Enerpro and the neighbourhood energy utility [which is owned by the city] would have to try and collect the amounts, but if they’re not successful in collecting the amounts, then I think we have no choice but to begin eviction proceedings.”
However, on September 20, Armstrong sent emails to the Straight indicating that his comments the day before “are no longer accurate or applicable”.
Then, on the morning of September 21, Armstrong told the Straight by phone that COHO was still considering its options in dealing with the tenants. He said he couldn’t provide details.
Vision Vancouver councillor Andrea Reimer and Non-Partisan Association councillor Suzanne Anton have met Burge and other tenants to discuss their concerns.
At the September 15 meeting, Anton, who is the NPA’s candidate for mayor in the November election, and Mike Klassen, a council candidate for the NPA, showed up to listen but were turned away by a guard.
Armstrong explained, “The city’s advice was to have a security guard at the meeting.”
COHO had previously told the tenants that they will no longer be charged for cold water, and that their future bills will not include the 12-percent harmonized sales tax.






Now, for the most important issue, is that both the City and Coho acknowledge that the Net Zero system is having some problems as some people were billed $140 a month and other $70 for basically the same services by Enerpro. Some apartment have no heat whatever and are still charged and then charged again when they have to use electric heaters to heat their apartments. The city clearly admits that they are still looking into the metering system and says it will all be OK but during this time still billing us even though they know the system is not working. It is absolutely clear from all the literature on this building that there has to be a commercial tenant on the ground floor to have the heat from their refrigeration raising to heat the rest of the building. The problem is the area looks like it will be vacant for another year or more. Then amidst all of this the city and Coho say that the system is working fine and that’s why they are billing us. Where’s the logic? Is that a “free ride” or is it just common sense that anyone rich or poor would ask to be defined? Are we just forced to pay $70 a month is addition to BC Hydro without being called freeloaders or forced to leave the building?
Of all the many questions the tenants had for the original meeting in June about the building and mostly about Enerpro the only concession Coho and the City made was they brought down our monthly rate for Enerpro from 12.50 a month to 9.50 a month (which is what all the rest of the buildings in the village pay and they are not charged for cold water).
I
There is no question that everyone loves being here and loves the apartments but to say we are unreasonable to inquire about this extra billing and we are doing so because we are poor is reprehensible to say. Any person with a brain would do the very same thing and to suggest otherwise is just plain nuts.
The net zero system is not working, period, and we are being charged for it. We are talking about what is fair and NOT a free ride! How did one company (Enerpro) get the full monopoly to privatize the sale of water without any of the residents of the city even knowing about it is something to also think about. Seniors are people too, if you stick a pin in our finger we bleed, just like you, and yes we also have brains that know the difference of being treated fairly and being treated chauvinistically.
I MUST keep the windows open, year round. I'm not the only one. Several others in the building do too.(all home owners)
Fortunately I am just renting at $2,400/mth including utilities while the home I just purchased is under construction.
I personally would never buy in any of these buildings. I could only imagine the heating bills.efficient?.green?.NO!
Large residential buildings pay easily over $100,000 for water every year.
No water is free unless you are drinking from a stream.