Little interest in Liberty wanting to raise rates
Source: Liberty Utilities
By Kathryn Reed
A proposed 17 percent rate increase by Liberty Utilities generated little interest from the public in the way of giving feedback to the California Public Utilities Commission.
The commissioners, who are responsible for granting or declining the hike, conducted four hearings last week – two in Kings Beach and two in South Lake Tahoe.
Combined, less than 30 people showed up for the meetings, and even fewer spoke.
Commissioners are expected to make a decision in late spring. Assuming an increase is approved, it will be retroactive to Jan. 1. Instead of one lump sum added to bills it would be spread out over a few months. A residential customer using 601.67 kilowatts per month would see an average monthly bill increase of $3.95 (or 4.37 percent), from $86.56 to $90.54.
Liberty provides electricity to about 49, 000 customers, with about 80 percent of them in the Lake Tahoe Basin on the California side.
Liberty first applied for the 17.34 increase in May. It is designed generate $13.57 million.
Ken Wittman with Liberty told the commission the actual increase may be scaled back because the cost of natural gas gone down since last spring.
General rate increase filings are required by the CPUC every three years. In 2012, rates went up nearly 5 percent. At that time the CPUC did not require the local public meetings.
“We welcome it. It’s an important part of the process,” Greg Sorensen, president of Liberty Utilities, told Lake Tahoe News.
Reasons for the increase include: vegetation management; drought-related fire prevention mandates; more energy efficiency programs/incentives; and the new solar incentive program.
Liberty also needs funds to pay for its multimillion-dollar upgrade to facilities on the North Shore and in the Truckee area. The Truckee to Northstar work was done last summer, with the Northstar to Kings Beach work to start after the snow melts in the spring.
“It helps with our reliability,” Sorensen said.
Normally peak usage is over the Christmas-New Year’s holidays, where the system is on the borderline of requiring customers to scale back use or the company will need to initiate brown outs. While consumption is always monitored, this year – even with so many people in the basin and resorts blowing snow – the usage didn’t reach the danger zone. The new line is credited with supplying enough power, Sorensen said.
—–
Notes:
· The rate increase application is on Liberty’s website.
my apologies for not making the hearings to give my feedback- too busy working overtime in order to pay my bills (which all seem to be increasing) who said inflation is in check?
We get to pay more for our power so Liberty (owned by a Canadian corporation) can earn a guaranteed return on investment, and Northstar and others can sell more real estate that locals can’t afford. What a great setup for them!
We appreciate the efforts of citizens on the North Shore who spent years on their own dime trying to protect ratepayers from this increase. Too bad they didn’t get the help they needed from the public to do so.
Be reminded Liberty Utilities is part of a bigger Canadian Company- Algonquin, a 4.5 BILLION dollar corporation. They did not provide the public criteria or details for the increase in the way of explanation of what is small versus medium or large commercial. Vegetation removal is suspect and deferred maintenance so what really get done? The Kings beach Hispanic community was not really included as the notice in our bills is not translated to be understood, and the rate of inflation is not nearly as high as the requested 17.34% increase for three consecutive years.
I think we all need to contact the PUC. State our objection to this proposed rate increase for SLT.
As pretty much the ONLY member of the South Shore population to have attended this hearing (perhaps the 6:00 one was better attended), I ‘signed up’ (outside) to speak, but as I was taken aback by the shortage of response, I only voiced some of the implied complaints (like those above), asking to reserve my right to comment again, should there be others who wanted to speak. . . as there were NO others, they adjourned – a grand total of maybe 30 minutes. . .[it took longer for their explanation of legalities & procedures as to why they were there than I took to say something]. . .
These hearings were scheduled a week AFTER this increase was scheduled to take place (January 1st !!), but that was not part of the explanation – I only found out due to an insert in the monthly Liberty bill. . .printed as it was in the ‘fine print’ of a tiny font. . . no mention was made of any delay in scheduling this with a more opportune and timely local schedule. . .
I was told that I could respond via correspondence (presumably meaning that they are not going to do another “public” hearing), as they have now done their civic duty…
To be fair, I did get some explanation on their use of the term ‘vegetation management’, as it was explained to me in terms of a ‘few feet’ on either side of the power lines – (to avoid the dilemma faced a few years ago when PG&E was to be seriously fined [200 million $$] for their lapse in pruning tree limbs, etc. along PG&E’s tens-of-thousands-of miles of power lines thruout CA in the danger of forest fires. . . the other “justifications” were not gone into. . .but my main point would have been why is there not “sustainable development” being done by developers – the answer may justify the above comment that it may in fact” be a “guaranteed return on investment” – but to not build ecologically safer, while charging 49,000 rate payers for it is a serious question that will now come up in many parts of the country, given the known fear in “public utilities” now for those who don’t (& have not) participate(d) in alternative energies. . .
The Algonquin/Calpeco/Liberty answer would be that they ARE building a much larger solar facility in Tonopah than the one that got outright rejected in the Carson Valley (20 MW), so being late to the party is supposed to be better than not being there at all. . .in the meantime, the Basin service territory is to cover what they do here. . .
LTN posted an announcement about the meeting(https://www.laketahoenews.net/2015/12/106357/). We should have all been there. Writing a letter now.
Garry,
Since so many are unable to get out or attend meetings at
many times of the day for various reasons your attendance and reporting are much appreciated.
Especially since you voice opinions expressed by LTN posters!
Thank you