Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

maxanderson350 t1_iwrqr0b wrote

It's fine that Tong thinks this rate increase is too high but the fundamental blame for this rests with the state government for allowing CT residents to pay far more in energy costs than people in nearly every other state.

66

TheDogsNameWasFrank OP t1_iwrt46b wrote

Eversource's use of their employees that are also state representatives or senators should be investigated.

Jesus Christ what a screw job.

61

jzt30 t1_iwsm36l wrote

How convenient they waited till after the election.

24

hamhead t1_iwu95zr wrote

It’s a supply side increase, not really a UI increase.

We could lay the blame at the states feet for building so many NG plants, but other than that, you had to know this was coming given the pricing on NG lately.

1

Usedtoknowsomeone46 t1_iwrwvoe wrote

Welcome to the collapsing civilization. Every year will be harder and harder going forward.

25

TheDogsNameWasFrank OP t1_iwsjr3d wrote

Late-Stage Capitalism

31

TheOkayestName t1_iwskt3e wrote

Or just voting democrat every election and expecting different results

−48

IndicationOver t1_iwsqkb3 wrote

Republicans dont even care about climate change

24

TheOkayestName t1_iwurkd4 wrote

Touch grass. Democrats want us to freeze to death with these oil and gas prices lmao

−10

splashattack t1_iwsn4dl wrote

Can’t exactly vote for the fascists now can we?

So I guess it’s the neo liberal capitalists instead.

If only this country had an actual left wing party.

20

TheOkayestName t1_iwsnrvp wrote

Lmao.

−18

splashattack t1_iwsolcw wrote

What’s funny? The Democratic Party is a neo liberal capitalist party. Capitalism is a right wing political/economic ideology.

14

TheOkayestName t1_iwurn98 wrote

And not being able to afford to heat your homes because of the leadership is what exactly?

−1

TheDogsNameWasFrank OP t1_iwswcms wrote

Oh yes, because the GQP is all in for the consumer. 🙄

13

TheOkayestName t1_iwurhc1 wrote

The GQP isn’t in charge of the state right now. Haven’t been in decades. Rates are going up not down. Right? Riiiiight???

−2

TheDogsNameWasFrank OP t1_iwuzfux wrote

You missed the point genius.

Again. Maybe read it twice:

Don't act as if the GQP would act in consumers best interests if they were in power.

Your point about this issue is valid. But if you think the Republicans would actually take action to benefit consumers you're on crack.

5

TheOkayestName t1_iwvm0cu wrote

I don’t care what the GQP COULD BE DOING.

I’m more concerned with what the current admin is DOING RIGHT NOW. Which is NOTHING.

0

TheDogsNameWasFrank OP t1_iwvprvn wrote

You brought the point up, as if getting rid of Dems would solve the problem.

It's bullshit what the Dems are allowing to happen. But you're full of shit intimating that the repubs would be doing anything more.

That is my point. And now that you've abandoned your point, we are done here.

1

CaptainSolo80 t1_iwt7433 wrote

Those annoying solar panels ads don’t sound so annoying anymore.

Neighbor of mine got panels a few years ago, they don’t pay UI anymore UI pays them.

I don’t think it’s a lot but I’d rather receive 30-50 bucks from UI rather then pay them 400 dollars

19

Backpacker7385 t1_iwup836 wrote

I went to solar a year ago. It’s really nice to get a monthly $9 bill from Eversource and then a big check back from them at the end of the year. Absolutely would recommend.

5

Badfiish t1_iwvi0zj wrote

what company did you go with?

1

Backpacker7385 t1_iwvjnom wrote

Tesla. It was cheaper to get a Tesla system including two backup batteries than the next two quotes I got which didn’t even include batteries. I know prices have gone up since I did mine, but get at least a couple quotes.

I also have a Tesla referral code, if you want it just message me. It’s only $300 off, but better than nothing.

1

Badfiish t1_iww6cf7 wrote

Ooof yeah I'm not supporting that company

I appreciate the offer though

2

Backpacker7385 t1_iww76ra wrote

I hear you. Your opinion may change if they’re still $10k cheaper than the next closest bid (and for better capabilities nonetheless), but in theory I agree with you.

1

Badfiish t1_iwwavii wrote

Yeah you are right we will have to weigh it out when the time comes

however we had some quotes by sun run already and friends who use them locally say they work for them so we may go in that direction

2

Enginerdad t1_iww06fq wrote

Did you buy or lease?

1

Backpacker7385 t1_iww0a32 wrote

Bought. I don’t think there are a ton of situations where leasing makes more sense than buying.

1

Enginerdad t1_iww7qq8 wrote

That's what I've always heard as well. If you don't mind me asking, how much is your solar payment relative to your former electric bill and how long will you be paying it off?

1

Backpacker7385 t1_iww8010 wrote

It’s financed at (ballpark) $150/mo for 20 years, but at a little less than 5% interest I’m actively paying it off more quickly than that.

Those numbers also don’t take into account the payback from Eversource for our over generation, which will offset several months per year entirely.

2

TheDogsNameWasFrank OP t1_iwv0d6z wrote

We got solar in the spring. It is a nice feeling to be somewhat insulated from their greed

2

ScooterTheBookWorm t1_iwuhqmt wrote

Brought to you by Reaganomics and Deregulation. Broad gameshow hand gestures at everything

6

Jawaka99 t1_iwsoxwe wrote

Well we just elected new leaders to run the state. Lets see what they do about this.

5

Hot-Cry920 t1_iwumnsc wrote

Lol nothing…. The region needs natural gas pipe lines. Democrats wont approve because it goes against green energy. Rolling blackouts will be real this winter.

2

Adm1ral_ackbar t1_iwuyw0t wrote

The state should take over Eversource and run it as a public utility. Then we can end the price gouging.

5

karmint1 t1_iwu40k0 wrote

Saw on energizeCT a 3 year contract for 14/kwh, which is crazy, but considering it if eversource's rate is about to jump to 18/kwh.

2

mischavus618 t1_iwu779x wrote

18? I saw 24.2 on WFSB for generation. Claimed they make no money to produce it.

1

karmint1 t1_iwu7epr wrote

I'm just going by the 40-50% speculated increase and I'm at just above 12 now. If it's doubling for me, I'd jump all over the 14 cent option.

1

mischavus618 t1_iwu7lsv wrote

WFSB quote “If the supply prices are approved by PURA, Eversource customers’ supply would go from 12.1 cents per kilowatt-hour to 24.2 cents per kilowatt-hour.”

2

MikeTheActuary t1_iwubo8y wrote

PURA frequently approves only a portion of Eversources' and UI's requested rate increases.

Presumably Eversource and UI are asking for huge increases, hoping PURA's enforced compromise will provide what they actually need.

1

TheDogsNameWasFrank OP t1_iwv06do wrote

Likely. But if true PURA should see through that

1

MikeTheActuary t1_iwv108g wrote

It's a near-universal fact of life in price-regulated enterprises: When you need a significant price increase, the regulator will likely resist. So you ask for the biggest increase you can justify, in the hopes that the approved increase is close to your real need.

The regulators know about the practice. If they're good, they know the right questions to establish the real need.

(Source: Spent many years seeking regulatory approval of insurance rates.)

2

Enginerdad t1_iww0ft5 wrote

Eversource's supplier rate is going up 100%, but since supplier charges are only about half of your bill (generation being the other half), your total bill will go up by about 50%

1

TituspulloXIII t1_iwv5wwz wrote

I wish the increase was that low in MA. National Grid went from 0.11 to 0.32 on 11/1

2

General_House_8602 t1_iwt4fqw wrote

Crazy that this would happen right after Lamont’s win………..

−9

[deleted] t1_iwsqu9s wrote

[removed]

−18

SolomonG t1_iwtp5fb wrote

This whole post is just garbage but I'm going to respond to this part because it is particularly terrible misinformation.

> EV law mandates caused five or more oil refineries to close down on their own free will.

Reduced demand during covid led to oil companies cutting costs by closing some US refineries.

Now that demand has returned, they have still not reopened those refineries. The US is currently refining at capacity. Meanwhile these companies are selling more oil to Europe than ever before because they can charge higher prices, further reducing the supply available domestically.

So American consumers are paying inflated prices while Exxon Mobil just had it's best quarter ever.

2

DarkDeSantis t1_iwrrn3k wrote

Energy is up 80% this year, 50% rly isn't that bad

−61

TheDogsNameWasFrank OP t1_iwrtrdr wrote

Found the eversource shill.

Bullshit.

We are being charged more than consumers in surrounding states per kWh.

The average residential electricity rate in Connecticut is 25 ¢/kWh, which is 41% higher than the national average rate of 18 ¢/kWh.

38

Swede577 t1_iwu58af wrote

From Lamont's press release.

As of January 1, 2023, Connecticut’s all-in residential electric rates ($0.35/kWh) for both Eversource and UI will be within the same range as most New England utilities, including New Hampshire ($0.33/kWh to $0.39/kWh) and Rhode Island ($0.29/kWh). Only Maine ($0.24/kWh to $0.28/kWh) and Vermont* ($0.18/kWh) are lower. Meanwhile, customers of National Grid and Unitil in Massachusetts are paying over 40% higher rates than Connecticut at $0.48/kWh and $0.42/kwh (Note: Electric rates change seasonally and on different timeframes for each utility; these figures are subject to change).

−1

ovrhere_ t1_iwrwwua wrote

People shouldn't have to pay for utilities at all actually.

9

hamhead t1_iwu92vm wrote

That makes no sense. We should encourage conspicuous consumption?

If you told me the first certain amount should be free you might have a point. But not at all.

And I mean, nothing is free. You’d need a huge tax increase to pay for that.

5

ovrhere_ t1_iwue69y wrote

Conspicuous consumption is a phrase I'm not familiar with so i looked it up and i don't understand what you're asking. Guaranteeing every resident has utilities regardless of their income feels to me like the opposite of purchasing goods or services to publicly display wealth rather than to cover basic needs, I'm suggesting the state should cover those needs universally. And yeah that could require higher taxes. I'm not opposed to paying a proportionately higher tax to support that.

−2

HeyaShinyObject t1_iww4aep wrote

Prior poster didn't really mean conspicuous consumption, but there is an effect that if you don't pay for something, you will consume it without regard. "Might as well turn my heat up to 83, my taxes already paid for it". It would be a disaster. You could make a better argument for universal basic income (I'm not convinced, but it's saner than free utilities).

1