Kolzig33189 t1_j6dgbo2 wrote
Reply to comment by hamhead in Are electric supply rates expected to drop again mid-year? Does a frugal homeowner need to check rates 2x/year to make sure they're getting the best deal? by sadswirlofme
I’m not really concerned with splitting between supply and deliver here, my original statement was cost to consumer. See below link. That is a massive increase that our own AG disagrees with them having any reason for doing.
hamhead t1_j6dgegm wrote
That’s the supply rate. Not delivery.
Edit:
User ghost edited. His current statement is nothing like it was, and now is completely irrelevant to the conversation. The AG’s statement he is now linking to also doesn’t say what he thinks it does. All it says is that electricity in CT is expensive. Nobody was arguing that.
/u/Kolzig32189 should be concerned with splitting between supply and delivery, since one is ES and the other is a pass through rate. There is no point to this entire thread of the conversation that he’s replying to if we aren’t concerned with what is what.
Kolzig33189 t1_j6du6eq wrote
Perhaps I worded it poorly; when I said I wasn’t concerned with splitting those costs out, I meant in relation to this thread I wasn’t really going into that with my previous comments and was talking about cost to consumers as a whole/what’s the monthly bill. Not that generally speaking about the Eversource problem I’m not concerned. The approx $80 per bill increase they’re quoting isn’t sustainable for a whole lot of families in the state especially given ES ridiculous profits.
[deleted] t1_j6dnl4n wrote
[deleted]
Kolzig33189 t1_j6dssd7 wrote
That’s one part of the statement and I completely understand that point and agree we should lessen our reliance on gas for our electricity generation.
But when Tong uses the phrase “we pay too much for our electricity in CT as it is and these rate hikes are nothing short of punishing”, I interpret that as “eversource is charging too much for their product (and screwing us) and there’s nothing we can do to really stop them.” He says in a subsequent sentence that they really don’t have ability to challenge supply rates. Maybe you have a different interpretation, that’s fine, I’m not trying to say you need to see it one way or another, that’s just how I interpret that statement.
It’s not like eversource doesn’t have a history of bad business practices: https://portal.ct.gov/AG/Press-Releases/2022-Press-Releases/AG-Tong-Announces-Settlement-with-Eversource-Over-Natural-Gas-Marketing-Allegations.
So I guess the logical question would be is why can’t Eversource be more heavily regulated by PURA or similar especially when it comes to profits vs rate increases? When they make incredible profits and then say “well we need to double supply rate overnight” and there is no control in place, that’s scary. All our states reps say that PURA basically has their hands tied, reviews are administrative only and have ‘no teeth,’ etc.
johnsonutah t1_j6e52wk wrote
If you want to decrease eversource costs in CT, then convince Vermont / New Hampshire to run new transmission lines down from Canada (they previously shot this down) so we can access cheap hydroproduction electricity.
Or convince New York / PA whatever states west of us shut down the natural gas pipeline that would’ve delivered us cheaper energy.
Sadly CT has little option to improve its situation
Kolzig33189 t1_j6e7pyc wrote
I can understand the reasoning why certain states wouldn’t want a pipeline but what was the logic for not wanting lines down from Canada? Environmental/concerns about land clearing?
[deleted] t1_j6dysib wrote
[deleted]
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments