Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

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