Remember to vote! Voting continues thru Friday, June 12
Send your comments and news tips to online.editor@valleyspringcomm.net, or to Mr. Landaker, larry.landaker@gmail.com and Ms. Rogers, rogersforpec@gmail.com
* Read the comments or add your own by clicking on the "comments" button below the story.Editor's Note: A new rate plan is expected to be voted on at a special meeting of the PEC board on Monday, June 15. Most of us want to know what our electric bill will be at the end of the month (some of us, maybe not), so the RoundUp asked the two Hays County (Wimberley area) candidates for the District 6 seat on the PEC board of directors to respond to two questions: 1) Based on your knowledge of PEC operations and the Guernsey rate study, do you believe a rate increase is justifiable, and if you were a sitting member of the board today, would you (speak honestly here, please) vote for a rate increase? 2) Would you support a change in the current PEC rate structure in favor of a tiered structure, i.e., lower rates for lower consumption?
Mr. Landaker's and Ms. Rogers' responses are presented below in alphabetical order.
Voting is still open thru June 12 by mail and electronically for three new full term board members. For a look at all the candidates go to this PEC web site: http://www.pec.coop/CorpProfile/Election2009.aspx Vote electronically here, http://www.pec.coop/ Or take the plunge, and attend PEC's annual meeting Saturday, June 20, in Johnson City. You can meet the candidates there and vote in person. Please do not miss your chance to vote in this important election.
_____________________
Larry LandakerCandidate, PEC Board, District 6
Wimberley, Tx
I do not support a rate increase for residential or commercial consumers who conserve energy.
In fact, we should be looking at ways to lower most utility bills. We must break the cycle of automatic, across the board rate increases which will never end. If we do not break that cycle now, then when will we do it? Higher rates are so easy to pass in the comfort of a board room but they wreak havoc around kitchen tables for people and businesses struggling to make ends meet. I will not be stampeded into an increase for all the usual excuses including "area growth and inflation."
I have studied the Guernsey Report. It may be adequate but its real purpose is to provide political cover to the board. The board owes a duty to the members to postpone any vote on rate schemes until the new board is seated and can reasonably debate it as well as alternative viewpoints. Why should three new board members have to defend a rate change without participating in its final design?
I do favor a tiered structure but want to be certain that PEC selects aggressive options
which are equitable and which strongly reward residential and commercial conservation. In the past the PEC way has been to thank its customers for conserving energy by raising their rates. We should consider offering conservation credits for people who respond to energy audits with real investment in more efficient appliances, weatherization and renewable energy sources such as small scale solar panels. I also favor something called, time of use (TOU). If, for example, people knew they could save on their utility bill by doing laundry during off peak demand times, I believe many people would plan accordingly.
Energy efficiency and renewable energy represent our future in central Texas. People are ready and willing to respond. Other cooperatives are doing these things. So must PEC.
Linda Kaye RogersCandidate, PEC Board, District 6
Wimberley, Tx
The newest rate proposal has a service fee rate increase of $2.50 per month. Costs for providing service have increased since the last rate structure was initiated. Many expenses have doubled. PEC is a business and must recover costs to “keep the lights on." The (proposed) new rate structure DECREASES rates by $.002579 per KWH for residential members.
Example:
Current Rate
500KWH – $25.34 -20.00 (base fee) = $ 5.34
1000KWH – $126.78 -20.00 = $106.78
New Rate:
500KWH – $27.71 -22.50 (new base fee) = $5.21
1000KWH – $126.70 -22.50 = $104.20
Approximately 87% of PEC members are Residential. They use approximately 69% of purchased power. Approximately 13% of PEC members are non-residential (small & large commercial and industrial). They use approximately 31% of purchased power. The new rate structure sends a very strong pricing signal to the non-residential members to reduce their peak usage. This is an energy efficiency incentive and could reduce the need for additional power plants and infrastructure, cutting overall costs to the coop/members. GM Juan Garza has said the current rates overcharge the members. The new rate structure has a net reduction overall.
I would vote for the new rate structure.
A tiered rate structure would punish those members who simply have greater need.
At a glance:
500KWH - (Me) single member household
1000KWH - Elderly, fixed income, 2 member household
1450KWH - Single mom, 2 children
2000KWH - 6 member household
In addition, tiered rates ask larger users to subsidize smaller users. This is because the cost of service has to be recovered, and it costs the same to provide service to a small user as a large user. This would be an unfair practice and against PURPA Standards. Tiered rates have not been shown to improve conservation. It would be a rate increase for some, and not justifiable. “No” to tiered rates.
15 comments:
Why weren't these questions and their respective responses published weeks ago, instead of three days before the end of voting? Or at the least these questions should have been asked weeks ago. I would probably change my vote had I seen these answers.
Fellow Hill Country Residents and members of PEC
Don't be fooled by the fear of higher rates. In fact, the Guernsey study actually shows the cost of electricity falling. The cost of service excluding the cost of electricity is proposed to increase from $20.00 per month to $22.50 while the cost for each KWH decreases. Also stated in the study is the actual cost of providing service is $39.90 per month, but the proposal only suggests a modest increase of $2.50. PEC can do things to reduce this cost of service and it should be done. The board of past years did not keep an eye on costs and it grew too quickly. It is not too late to implement a program to control/reduce future costs of service.
Beware of tiered rates. It is just a way for one class of residential user (large user – families) to subsidize another class of residential user (small user – singles).
Just look for yourself at the PEC website (pec.coop) and don't rely on candidates’ spin of higher electricity rates.
I don't trust a lot of what's on the PEC web site; and co-op staff generated press releases are the same, very corporate image conscious. I'd sure like for the board to poke their nose in the public information office one of these days and loosen things up a bit, country style. And lose those ties and high heels, please.
Mr. Landaker, you say a lot but don't really seem to be responding to the real isssues of the new rate deal. I've seen several comments about the new rates being lower, but you keep talking about them being higher. Ms. Rogers explanation makes more sense. ANd I didn't get a lecture in the process.
I would like to know where the candidates stand on addressing the needs of the lower income clients of PEC. I am the director for the Barnabas Connection of the Wimberley United Methodist Church and we are continually struggling with PEC as they tack on late payments and reconnect fees to the bills of clients who have very limited income and would be eligible for financial support if they were not in a cooperative. We have had clients who need the electricity due to being health compromised and PEC still threatens disconnection. PEC funds donated to Community Action to help these types of clients can only help them once a year too, so that is very limited assistance. I pray that the rate increase will not adversely effect these clients, because they are in dyer need as it is...
Bottom-line is that currently PEC rates hover around 11 cent per kilowatt hour.
Bottom-line is that PEC already has promised an increase of rates shortly.
Candidates can promise and say whatever they want to, much as used-car sales staff; however, the truth is to follow the history of PEC.
There is no doubt in my mind that PEC will raise our monthly bills whether or not it is needed.
I guess some people will always be distrusting and negative. I looked at the rate thing and it does show a rate decrease. $2.50 sevice fee increase is nothing when you think about how much everything has gone up in the past 3-4 years. At least we get good service, unlike Aqua Texas, our water.
Eyes Open, you sound like an apologist for our beloved PEC management and the "political cover" Guernsey report that Mr. Landaker has so adeptly pointed out. In my experience, an operation as big as the PEC always has tons of fat it can trim that can be applied to more than token rate reductions, or minor rate increases. You say you looked at the "rate thing." Can you tell us what costs savings are addressed therein? Things like pay raises, bonuses, a brand new and expensive expansion of drive through bill paying centers, and layers and layers of bureaucracy. How 'bout that covey of quarter million dollar a year assistant general managers?
The rate decrease Linda Kaye touts is the result of a temporary reduction in the cost of power from LCRA. The increase in the service availability charge will be permanent. Don't be fooled. Until a new board has scrubbed the PEC budget and eliminated waste, and smaller users are treated more fairly, the rate structure should be left as it is. Vote for Larry!
We've had a few comments sent in that tout and/or attack one candidate or the other. We suspect someone (perhaps a candidate hiding behind the anonymous signature) is making shrill allegations that would not enhance the discussion much. Those comments will not be published. If you wish to specifically endorse a particular candidate, please identify yourself. If you wish to comment generally your electric rates or on what the candidates have stated in their post, please remain as anonymous as you want. Here's hoping that the two candidates have at least taken the time to address Ms. McCuistion's very legitimate concerns.
I emailed Ms. McCuistion very shortly after her comment was posted.
I like facts over opinion. Thank you Ms. Rogers for providing some facts I can understand. Just one question, Why all this talk about a rate increase? Looks like a break even deal to me.
I will publicly answer Ms. McCuiston's comments. I too am worried about the ability of lower income customers to pay their rising utility bills. People can economize and cut out a lot of non-luxuries in life but try living in our society without electricity. At a minimum, I would favor special short-term, needs-based rate classes offering a finite number of kWh at significantly reduced rates for people who can demonstrate legitimate need. We cannot ignore this and pretend it will go away. Ignoring it will cost PEC more in the long run as increased numbers of people simply defalut on their bills.
Linda Rogers did reach out to me shortly after my post on the Roundup blog. I appreciated her responsiveness. I have tried to speak with other PEC board members without much success, unless it seemed to answer a need they had.
In the world of politics, we never quite know who to believe. My tendency is to want to believe what I hear, that those that are running for board positions are concerned about PEC's lower income clients. But this is one place where my faith is holding out for seeing what happens once elected.
The Barnabas Connection administers the Wimberley Ministerial Alliance fund which helps pay a lot of PEC utility bills. However this fund is very limited and it often feels like we are helping PEC more than the client as we pay multiple late fees and reconnect fees. And the money that PEC donates to Community Action to help pay bills seems more like money laundering in an attempt to look like a good guy as the money comes back to them to pay for not only electricity but again lots of late payment fees and reconnect fees.
PEC would be wise to include community leaders (who are addressing the needs of the working poor) in brainstorming to address these needs in a way that is responsive to the cooperative and the lower income consumers. Only time will tell, if PEC and its Board of Directors moves towards being a better neighbor to all of its customers.
As a fellow social worker, I know that Ms. Rogers is particularly interested in the issue of people who have trouble meeting their utility bills. She's certainly researched the issues well and has her facts straight.
I've worked with her in the past and know that she's honest and always fulfills her duties well.
Post a Comment