Higher Charges for Charges

Con Edison got the nod from two state judges yesterday to jack prices on their residential service starting April 1. While the hike wasn't quite as much as the utility had originally asked for, it is expected to result in an increase of about $8 per month for the average home owner. All told, Con Ed should reap an extra $632 million. It's not a done deal yet: One more vote is needed from the Public Service Commission.

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/7880

Comments

As a ConEd customer, I object.
As a stockholder, I approve.

Posted by: northsloperenter at January 8, 2009 10:11 AM

I think that the our regulatory framework in NY is screwy. Let's say that I decide that I am going to be super careful and limit my consumption of electric power, to cut down on waste, our energy dependance, emissions, carbon footprint, whatever. Let's say that i buy special light bulbs and think through every conceivable manner of conserving, which is the intelligent thing to do in the macro sense and for my finances. I am then penalized by having the rates go up. That is exactly what has happened. Electric power consumption has gone down, which is a good thing, but Con Ed then must raise rates to make up for the shortfall. I was complaining to a friend about this who has a software company which does billing for the electric power marketers. We then discussed how the grid needs maintenance and when consumption goes down, revenues go down and there is less money to maintain the grid. I really think that we should be rewarded for reducing consumption, not penalized. That there should be a different way to make revenues for the maintenance of the grid. There is a system in other states called Negawatts, whereby utilities are rewarded by their public service commissions and given tax brakes for reduction of power usage associated with increased efficiency. Instead we are penalized. Of course the money has to come from somewhere, but the current system says that you can't win -- there are fixed costs associated with maintaining the grid, so if you lower your consumption, it doesn't matter. So much for solving the energy crisis (and our own attempts to be frugal).

Posted by: donatella at January 8, 2009 10:41 AM

Solar panels.

***Bid half off peak comps***

Posted by: Brownstones Half Off at January 8, 2009 10:56 AM

Well, there are fixed costs associated with maintaining the grid...

Reducing your own energy usage will result in savings compared to no reducing your energy usage no matter what the rates are.

Whether or not the current rate increase is justified, I can't really say as I haven't researched the issue.

Posted by: northsloperenter at January 8, 2009 11:00 AM

Con Ed = Thugs. I have all energy saving bulbs and I unplug everything when it's not in use (televisions, printers, microwave, etc.) The only things that remain plugged in are the fridge, stove and two 4 watt night lights. The usage portion of my bill never exceeds $35. The final bill amount? $100 + dollars. RIDICULOUS. The majority of my bills are always the fees, delivery charges, taxes and whatnot. There should be a rate system in place that incentivises (is that a word?) lower energy usage and gives a break on delivery charges and the like.

Posted by: InsertSnappyNameHere at January 8, 2009 11:05 AM

"There should be a rate system in place that incentivises (is that a word?) lower energy usage and gives a break on delivery charges and the like."

Not a bad idea.

I would think it would have to go through the regulators as ConEd is a regulated company and does not set their own rates.

Posted by: northsloperenter at January 8, 2009 11:15 AM

Time of use pricing is available in LI -- I believe that a more modern infrastructure is required for it. My problem is that Con Ed sits on a mountain of cash and when was the last time we heard about any infrastructure improvements. Seems that they only fix what's broken and only when someone dies or sues.

Posted by: BH76 at January 8, 2009 11:18 AM

Northsloperenter...it definitely would have to go through regulators and be approved by the Public Service Commission. I'm an attorney and I've worked in telecom before dealing with the PSC and I know first hand that getting rate changes is a difficult process. Despite what a lot of people believe, the PSC does not just rubber-stamp rate changes that come through their offices (at least not for telecom companies) and I'm willing to bet that Con Ed had a lot of explaining to do in the early stages of asking for and justifying the increase. It seems to me that in today's world where there is a constant hew and cry about energy crises and demonizing those who don't go green, there has to be system in place to make energy consciousness a viable and attractive alternative to the overconsumption of the past. Con Ed, even if only to approve their image in the minds of New Yorkers, should be jumping at the chance to be a trendsetter by lowering delivery charges, etc. for those of us who take great strides to reduce our energy consumption.

Posted by: InsertSnappyNameHere at January 8, 2009 11:26 AM

BH76 - time of day pricing is available in Brooklyn as well. It doesn't require a change to the infrastructure, just an upgraded meter in your home.

Posted by: arches at January 8, 2009 12:44 PM

Anyone else think it's kind of ridiculous that it's 2009 and coned still sends (presumably decently paid) human beings around the city to look at analog meters?

Posted by: streber at January 8, 2009 12:48 PM

What about all the surcharges for fuel when it was high: UPS, Waste Management, etc. Most of those aren't lowering the surcharges in pace with the decline in oil prices and some aren't lowering it at all. We rarely have people read our meter, they drive by and a device reads it. A lot more efficient. However, any utility bill whether it's G&E, Verizon, etc. has so many charges that the smallest amount owed is usually the cost of the fuel itself.

Posted by: Iknow at January 8, 2009 1:10 PM

Streber...the real thing that's ridiculous is that they have a charge on the back of your bill that includes meter reading costs, yet many of us continuously get estimated bills as opposed to those based on actual meter readings. There have been 2 occasions where I got a bill for $3 or so because they grossly overestimated by usage by so much that I had seriously overpaid for a few consecutive months. I have a friend that had his electricity cut of a few times for non-payment. They never seemed to know the days and times of the office below his apartment so they could get access to the basement to read the meter, but they sure as hell knew when they could get access to shut the service off when they didn't get paid!

Posted by: InsertSnappyNameHere at January 8, 2009 1:13 PM

InsertSnappyNameHere...

If you think that's ridiculous; I don't have access to my basement, but Coned had once put a 50 (FIFTY) dollar charge on my bill for not providing access to them. I am a tenant, only the landlord has access.

The charge, after several lengthy frustrating phone calls, was removed.

I've gotten negative bills.

They apparently don't have the tech to simply drive by my building.

Posted by: streber at January 8, 2009 3:48 PM

« More Evidence that Avalon is Planning Downtown Tower Trying to Throw His Arms Around the Housing Crisis »

January 8, 2009

Higher Charges for Charges

Trackback Pings

Comments

Post a comment

Latest Restaurant Additions