Wednesday, November 19, 2008

Another meeting I would have liked to attend

Duke Energy is the power company for this region. They have paid “refunds” of at least $80 million to 22 influential, high volume customers (Procter & Gamble, General Motors, etc.) in exchange for them dropping opposition to rate increases.

The question before the Ohio Supreme Court is, is this unfair to the 600,000 small customers, mostly residential, who endure the increases without the rebates? Duke had to formulate a response and I would’ve loved to have been in that meeting.

Before postulating how that went, I will review some background. Cinergy, the forerunner power company, was criticized for buying the naming rights to Cinergy Field (nee Riverfront Stadium). It’s not like they’re in a highly competitive field. Why spend all that money on naming rights (and let’s not forget the luxury suite at the games) when you’re pleading poverty and coming to us for rate hikes?

Cinergy’s explanation was that the money wasn’t coming from utility billings. Say again? The money wasn’t coming from utility billings. So, either you’re selling Amway on the side or you’re taking it out of retained earnings, which did come from power revenue. High points for audacity. And, more significantly, it flew.

So, here’s how I see the meeting going:

Smith: They bought that Cinergy explanation. Let’s just tell them the bribes are refunds and that they don’t come out of power revenue.

Jones: Underreaching.

Smith: How’s that?

Jones: If they bought that so easily, we obviously haven’t pushed the envelope. Let’s not say it didn’t hurt them to carry the increased load alone. Tell them they actually benefitted by doing so.

Farfetched? Before passing judgment, consider this quote from PUCO attorney Thomas McNamee, imbiber of the Kool-Aid, when denying how the selective refunds neither discriminate against nor harm residential customers: “It’s turned out to be a very good deal for Mr. Small’s customers.”

Paying higher rates and carrying a bigger share of the financial load always is. Isn’t it?

No comments: