For a while now there has been an effort to conserve the use of utilities (water, electricity, etc.), but it would seem that this is harming the utilities companies as they are now passing along the loss of revenue onto the customers to recoup their losses. Here in Minnesota, there was a 9 percent rate hike (+$8 average) for electricity. Here is an article released this week explaining it.
http://minneapolisenergyoptions.org/...night-on-wcco/When you went to pay your power bill you might have noticed that Xcel Energy customers in Minneapolis are now paying 9 percent more for electricity as of January 1, 2013.
According to a press release from Xcel Energy in November of 2012 and a December 2012 Star Tribune Article, starting January 1, 2013 a typical residential customer will pay about $8 more per month due to the Xcel’s rate increase.
In the December 13, 2012 Star Tribune Article, “Xcel says the increase is needed to recoup investments in its two nuclear power plants, counter a drop in electric sales and pay for other power plant and transmission upgrades as well as higher property taxes.”
Minneapolis Energy Options (MEO) sat down with WCCO today to discuss the Xcel rate case and why Minneapolis residents shouldn’t be paying more to use less energy. Xcel stated that it needed to recoup the profits to counter a drop in electric sales due to consumers using less. MEO thinks residents should get rewarded for using less energy not have to pay more.
http://www.xcelenergy.com/About_Us/E..._rate_increase
http://www.startribune.com/business/...1.html?refer=y
http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/video?...clipId=8351697
The hike probably would have gone over a little better had they not said that they were punishing consumers for using less energy, which is something that they preach online and is included with every monthly bill.
There is a wind farm in southern Minnesota that was shut down because it was giving too much power back to the grid. The guy who had owned the farm decided to make another farm a few miles away as a "fuck you" to Xcel.
While doing research for more examples, I see Nevada's NV Energy is also looking to punish their customers for conserving power.
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2012...make-conserva/Despite higher-than-expected summer revenue, NV Energy is seeking the OK for a $9.8 million surcharge to make up for revenue lost as the result of conservation measures taken by its customers.
The state Bureau of Consumer Protection is opposing the request before the state Public Utilities Commission.
Dan Jacobsen, technical staff manager for the bureau, said it is inappropriate and unreasonable for NV Energy to seek a surcharge, “particularly while customers are struggling to pay higher-than-normal summer electricity bills.”
It was hotter than normal this spring and summer, prompting customers to spend more to keep their air conditioners running.
A 2009 law allows utilities to raise rates to offset the loss of revenue due to conservations measures by customers. Utilities argued they have fixed operating costs to cover.
Jacobsen, in prefiled testimony to the PUC, said the power company has already made up for any lost sales from conservation efforts by the higher-than-expected revenues collected during the hot summer months through August.
But Patricia Franklin, NV Energy manager of revenue requirements, said the utilities commission rejected those same arguments by Jacobsen in a 2010 case.
“Once again, BCP (Bureau of Consumer Protection) is trying to link sales growth to lost revenue recovery. As the commission found 18 months ago, this is contrary to the statute and rejected the proposal,” Franklin said.
Stopping NV Energy from collecting the surcharge would be a disincentive for the company to promote energy efficiency programs, she said.
Is there anyone else also experiencing this issue? Why the hell should we use less power by using energy efficient electronics or switching to CFL/LED light bulbs if they're just going to charge us for the difference in the end anyways?