Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

eddie964 t1_j6d5skl wrote

Reply to comment by Kolzig33189 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

Tell me, oh CT energy guru: What, exactly, is a "production rate"? And why would delivery rates change in response to oil or gas prices? (Is it possible you are just throwing out terms to make it sound like you know what you are talking about?)

Supply prices are adjusted 2x a year to reflect what it costs Eversource to procure electricity supply on the competitive market. Usually, the Jan. 1 adjustment is an increase, and the July 1 adjustment is a decrease. Obviously, when energy markets are haywire, that trend may fall by the wayside.

Fuel prices are generally down from where they were a few months back, so supply prices ought to follow that this summer. But because of the way CT utilities have to procure supply for their customers, it could take a while for lower prices to get fully baked in.

Keep an eye on competitive supply options in the months ahead, since there are likely to be some deals. But continue to compare over the longer term because Eversource's Standard Offer often falls below competitive supplier prices after prices rebound from a drop.

4

Kolzig33189 t1_j6d7vo0 wrote

Why am I not surprised to see a bunch of pro eversource/“eversource isn’t the bad guy” posts in your history?

Duff burner account perhaps??? Lol. Or just an eversource employee? Really don’t understand people defending this crooked company at this point, how they make record profits every year and then turn and say “yeah we need to increase rates again.”

I understand that supply prices are based on cost of natural gas to produce our electricity. And natural gas has plummeted in price since the summer. Also, that has exactly nothing to do with why eversource has tripled their cost to consumers in a short amount of time. Care to explain that one and why eversource isn’t to blame?

−2

eddie964 t1_j6d8ydr wrote

Nope. Just used to work in the business (not for ES) and am constantly amazed at how little people understand about this subject. My only goal is to correct factual misinformation. (Ask me about the distribution rate increases both Eversource and UI are proposing, and you'll get a very different kind of answer.)

(By the way, having perused my history, are you really accusing a 15-year Redditor with 55k karma and a long comment history in dozens of subs of being a "burner" account?)

11

Kolzig33189 t1_j6dbfar wrote

Would you prefer the term “alternate account”? It was clearly sarcasm regardless. And besides, absolutely none of that answers the question I asked about delivery costs tripling.

−12

eddie964 t1_j6e1w4q wrote

Serious offer: If you shoot me an image of the itemized delivery charge on your recent bill, and the one you are comparing it with, I will identify what has changed to cause your delivery charge to triple.

2

hamhead t1_j6deg6l wrote

No one was arguing with you on the delivery side. But the delivery side is irrelevant to OP’s question.

If you want an argument on the delivery side though, delivery increases have been below the inflation rate for years. They certainly have not tripled. As someone else pointed out, they’ve increased under 16% in 6 years. I haven’t checked his math but if you have better info, let us know.

3

Kolzig33189 t1_j6dgbo2 wrote

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.

https://portal.ct.gov/AG/Press-Releases/2022-Press-Releases/Attorney-General-Tong-Statement-on-Eversource-Supply-Rate-Increase

−1

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.

4

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.

−1

[deleted] t1_j6dnl4n wrote

[deleted]

1

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.

0

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

3

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?

1