tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3033288879708780106.post4609542853149030125..comments2023-04-07T05:19:44.951-04:00Comments on Yes Vermont Yankee: Money Settles into Gaz Metro Pockets, Dust Settles under the DomeMeredith Angwinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02737538041807740424noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3033288879708780106.post-87145072700890648612012-05-09T15:42:28.407-04:002012-05-09T15:42:28.407-04:00Jeff. Thank you for the thoughtful comment.
I wa...Jeff. Thank you for the thoughtful comment. <br /><br />I want to add two things to think about.<br /><br />First, when the PSB said that "if sold, you must return the money to the ratepayers" the PSB had no idea when the sale would take place or IF it would take place. So they could not have imagined that their rule was for the utility to track all the older rate-payers for (say) thirty years in order to return the money. I think for simplification and ability to carry out the orders, the PSB meant: "return the money to the current ratepayers" at the time of the sale. The problem is that under the current plans, no money is going to be returned to the ratepayers, though money is being returned to the shareholders.<br /><br />Second, whoever the current ratepayers are--they are people who have loaned money. The problem is that the usual loan looks like this: I have ten dollars, and I loan it to you and later you give it back to me with interest. <br /><br />That's the wrong model for this "loan". <br /><br />What happened here is that all ratepayers, past and present, paid higher rates than they would otherwise have paid, therefore providing an on-going loan to the utility. By returning money to current ratepayers, some ratepayers who have moved away won't get money back, and some ratepayers who just signed up last month will get more than their "fair share" perhaps. But the model is that everyone buying power right now is paying more than they should pay right now. And they will get money back right now. <br /><br /> It's not perfect, but, in my opinion, it's a lot better than shareholders getting money and ratepayers getting none.Meredith Angwinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02737538041807740424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3033288879708780106.post-44626434695503861612012-05-09T08:15:13.780-04:002012-05-09T08:15:13.780-04:00Meri,
Good post - thanks for the followup. It&...Meri,<br /><br /> Good post - thanks for the followup. It's an interesting story to watch develop. Now the question is, will Vermonters actually care about this?<br /><br /> I would disagree with you on one point - I don't think it's fair to return money owed to one ratepayer, to a different ratepayer. You say that ratepayers and shareholders are alike in this regard - that you give the money to current rate payers and current shareholders.<br /><br /> The key difference is, that a shareholder who sells his shares gets compensated for those shares by the person who bought the shares. It's kind of like land - if I sell you land, you get rights to whatever resources (trees or other plants, deer and other game, mineral rights, etc) is on that land. I try to factor that into the asking price I negotiate with you.<br /><br /> A ratepayer who moves doesn't get paid anything for their rebate check. They paid that money to CVPS, and they should be returned that money, not the current ratepayer at that same address.<br /><br /> You might try to reason that, well, the rebate check is like mineral rights or lumber - part of the property. That idea breaks down, however, when you consider the idea of renters - if I rent an apartment, I have to pay utility rates, but when I move out, the new renter doesn't pay me a dime. Should my landlord get the rebate on the rate over-charges I paid while renting? That doesn't seem in any way equitable. Utility fees and property ownership are not "tightly coupled", in this case.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com