|
The Commission received hundreds of letters and eight formal Complaints in response to the bill inserts GPU Energy sent its customers between February 12 and February 16, 2001, regarding its PLR Petition and Supplemental Filing.
1. Letter Responses
Although the following is a summary of the hundreds of responses, they are not evidence in this proceeding because they are hearsay statements.
Most comments protested a rate increase, many of them stating that they were on fixed incomes and others stating that were operating under a tight budget.
Many other comments stated that the Commission should not grant GPU Energy rate relief because it made the business decision to sell its generation based on its perception of the energy market. The stockholders, therefore, should bear the burden of GPU’s bad business decision to divest itself of its generation assets.
Other comments criticized Pennsylvania’s Customer Choice, calling it a headache and a runaround for consumers while creating windfall profits for electricity generators. Many stated that there is no consumer choice in Pennsylvania because most energy providers have pulled out of the energy market. One said that some of the utility industry should be re-regulated because the consumer has not faired well under deregulation.
Some individuals stated that they did not leave GPU Energy for a cheaper rate and resent paying a higher rate because of people switching electric suppliers. If GPU Energy is going to take customers back, GPU Energy should charge the returning customer a higher rate. It is not fair that they and others should pay for other customers shopping around. Another said that there is no point to the Choice Program in Pennsylvania if a person researches the best price for electricity only to have the price changed at any time.
Others complained about repeated power outages. Others complained that their current electric bills are too high. Others complained that GPU Energy management should take a cut in wages.
One comment came from a hunters association complaining about high gas rates. Another came from someone complaining about Verizon.
Another individual stated that GPU Energy should not be granted a rate increase because it was awarded stranded costs recovery in its restructuring proceeding, spent it on out of state projects or pocketed it and downsized their employees.
One comment came from a small business owner who stated that any increase in rates has a large effect on his business and, in a competitive business world, his company does not have the luxury of passing on the increased cost of electricity along to its customers.
A dairy farmer noted that she receives income from milk at 1978 prices while paying bills at 2001 prices. She is at the end of the line for electricity in her area and has spent thousands of dollars over the years to correct stray voltage and high voltage. She lost a herd of 45 cows that could not handle the stray voltage. Her home-raised herd adjusted to the problem, but her husband died recently and she and her sons are trying to keep the farm running after living on it for 29 years. She asks that the reader remember where their food comes from and to help this dairy farmer survive.
2. Formal Complaints
Kenneth C. Springirth. Docket No. C-00015085
Mr. Springirth is an Intervenor in this proceeding. In addition, he testified at the Public Input Hearing held in Erie and sponsored a written statement and two exhibits, which were admitted into the record. Tr. 91-304. His Complaint is pro forma in nature and adds nothing to his testimony, statement and exhibits. Mr. Springirth’s Complaint will be sustained or dismissed, consistent with the discussion below.
Michael and Angela Surdovel. Docket No. C-00015086
The Surdovels assert that GPU is attempting to pass on their increased cost to customers in an attempt to maintain their profit margin. GPU should join consumers to force down the cost of petroleum, the real reason for the increase in electric rates.
Middletown Merch. Mart and/or Saturday’s Market.
Docket No. C-00015087
This Complainant appears to be a business which rents space to merchants. It opposes any rate increase, states that it would like to testify and will hire an attorney if possible. This Complainant, as well as the others, had notice of the hearings and the opportunity to appear and testify, but did not do so. This Complaint, and the others, will be sustained or dismissed, consistent with the discussion below.
Jay A. Weist. Docket No. C-00015089
Mr. Weist asserts that GPU Energy made a business decision to sell its generation plants at a profit over book value, thus eliminating stranded costs, and that GPU Energy should have, but did not, assign the negotiated rate cap into the plant sale agreement to eliminate the risk of market prices going forward. He recommends that GPU Energy be held accountable for any losses resulting from their decision.
Marlea and Donald Terry. Docket No. C-00015091
These Complainants have an all-electric house and urge the Commission to proceed cautiously in view of the future feasibility of electric heating systems.
Randy L. Rosenberger. Docket No. C-00015092
Mr. Rosenberger states that it is time for the board members of the large companies making decisions that impact the public to be held accountable for their mistakes.
Allen Cummings. Docket No. C-000015093
Mr. Cummings asserts that if GPU Energy receives the rate increase, it will remove the cap on the industry. He urges the Commission not to remove safeguards to future price increases, in part because there are many on fixed incomes who do not deserve an increase.
Clark DeForce. Docket No. C-00015094
Mr. DeForce understands that GPU Energy signed an agreement with the Commission not to increase rates until 2009 and wonders what GPU Energy did with the money it received for the sale of its generation plants. Mr. DeForce wants the Commission to reject the rate increase and hold GPU Energy to the agreement not to increase rates until 2009.
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: |
