Reasons for electric rate increase just don’t add up
To the editor:
On Tuesday, Aug. 5, a notice of proposed rate changes appeared in The Sentinel. In that notice was “Upon request the company will send you the Statement of Reasons for Electric Pa. P.U.C. No. 81, explaining why the rate increase has been requested.” I requested the Statement of Reasons and met with resistance until I believe mention of dialogue with the P.U.C. softened the reluctance.
I paraphrase an old adage “Figures don’t lie but electric companies can figure.” I received the literature I requested. It consisted of ambiguous reasons lacking any substantiating figures for an increase.
I want to retell an old story: During the age of horse and buggies, Better Buggy Bearing Co. made wheel bearings for buggies. Raising the cost of bearings 10 percent afforded them a whopping increase of profit. “Let’s do it again and we’ll make more money” said BBB Co. In comes the era of the motor car; fewer bearings were bought – profits fell. BBC Inc raised the price again and again. Bankruptcy followed.
One thousand kilowatt hour users would pay an additional $234.96 per year (Penelec stated in their rate change proposal.) Penelec customers will now conserve; turn down thermostats; turn off heat in seldom used rooms. New homes shy away from heating electrically. Electrical demand will now fall dramatically and profits will decrease – you can figure the rest of the story.
Is the Penelec rate increase justified? I have my own opinion. Why don’t you request the “Statement of Reasons” for the increase and form an opinion? After reading that unclear, indistinct and confusing report, I would suggest contacting the Mifflin County Tea Party Patriots regarding the merits and necessity of a rate increase. For some added information you might also want to contact the Coalition To Stop Smart Meters In PA at www.stopsmartmeters.com
I think you’ll get a real eye-opener. You’ll either fight for it or fight harder if you’re against it. It’s your choice, exercise it now – you’re still afforded that right.
Charles E. Deibert