On 3/15/2012 9:30 AM, George wrote:
On 3/15/2012 9:38 AM, The Daring Dufas wrote:
On 3/15/2012 7:56 AM, Edge wrote:
The federal, state, and local governments are always looking for ways
to get more of your money. Deregulation of the electric utilities was
justified to promote competition and thereby lower your electric
bills. This resulted in separate supply and delivery charges. The
delivery charge is relatively fixed even if you use no kWh, like a
vacation home.

My village supplies water to my house and recently decided to raise
the water rates. Deregulation didn't require them to, but I guess they
liked the idea of having a fixed fee as a steady source of revenue. So
they changed the billing method to include a fixed charge - even if
you use no water. To make it better, they shorten the billing cycle
from three months to two months. I guess this allows them to collect
more of these fixed charges in a year.

I look forward to others adopting this idea. Maybe the next time I go
to the gas station, they will not only charge me for the gas, but a
parking fee for using their land while I fill up.

I have no problem with a fee for paying for infrastructure and having
the service available even when the service is not used. Someone has to
be paid for hooking up the service and maintaining it. Paying a fee to
have your home hooked to the grid makes sense. ^_^

TDD

For sure, and I also think it wouldn't be unreasonable to pay more if it
costs more to provide service. So if you decide to live in a sparsely
populated area where there are only a few customers per mile it clearly
costs more to install/maintain that infrastructure than it does in a
location where say homes are much closer together.

I suppose the costs can be spread out to make it possible for rural
areas to be electrified. I think that was the mission of the TVA.

TDD