Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

hcwhitewolf t1_jcbjq4i wrote

What an odd article. They present the 3% increase for natural gas as the annual amount of $51 as some insurmountable amount and then when it comes to the 25% decrease in electrical rate, they call it a “slim margin” and present as only a monthly savings of $17 instead of presenting it similar to the natural gas increase ($204 decrease annualized, if you didn’t do the math).

Just such a weird way to write an article and indicates a bit of a lean in the author’s narrative.

No fan of RIE, but subversive journalism isn’t the answer.

40

GotenRocko t1_jcc4a7i wrote

Funny they presented it so sloppy, because if they did a little more research they would see the 25% decrease is only in relation to the current winter rate, it's much higher than last years summer rate. It's 36% higher than last summer, and it's actually higher than the winter 2021 rate. So there is no decrease at all for electricity. And it wouldn't be annualized because the rates are for 6months, they will jump up again in the fall.

16

jjayzx t1_jccb0xz wrote

The current minimum is as high as the previous maximums. Essentially telling us to get fucked.

8

godmode33 t1_jcf3agh wrote

What choice is there? When you have no where else to go you will do what they want.

1

degggendorf t1_jcf85d7 wrote

Electric supply is deregulated in our state, you are free to choose a different supplier.

RIE has a monopoly on distribution, which is why any distribution charges they charge have a capped ROI (essentially, profit) percentage, approved by the PUC. Whether they are taking a fair ROI is a matter of opinion, but I personally see any external profitability as unreasonable; it's a universal need, it should be run by the municipality and not turn a profit, just like our water, sewer, road, etc. systems. That said, if we're stuck with a commercial model, them taking (IIRC) 5% profit seems at least less bad than it could be.

4

DotDotCode OP t1_jcbmvya wrote

I agree it’s subversive, but it doesn’t take away the fact they are trying to continue to raise prices when they should be lowering. Hopefully this gets shut down.

13

_CaesarAugustus_ t1_jcdftml wrote

They will continue to “lower” prices after spikes in order to set new standards. They’ll reset the baseline intermittently.

3