Here’s a writeup below we recently received from a resident concerned by a proposed hike in NV Energy’s basic service charge rate, which was recently discussed in Carson City at the Public Utilities Commission, followed by more public forums next week here in Reno.
“The proposed rate increase would nearly triple the basic service charge for residential customers from $16.50 to $44.40 per month,” the local commenter wrote.
“This would saddle Northern Nevadans with the highest fixed fee in the country. It will unfairly impact families on fixed or lower incomes who use less electricity, starting each month with a $45 bill before flipping on the first light switch. NV Energy's rate increase also boosts shareholder profits at the expense of hard-working Nevadans. The Public Utilities Commission (PUC) will hold a consumer session on the rate case on June 13th at 6pm at the Washoe County Commission Chambers. This is the public's opportunity to tell the PUC and NV Energy that we don't want another bill hike.”
George Cavros with Western Resource Advocates recently wrote that “when the proposed fixed charge for customers is increased, the volumetric energy rate is reduced, thereby lowering the value of a kilowatt‐hour that is conserved. The almost tripling of the fixed charge will all but remove NV Energy’s customers’ ability to lower their energy use and meaningfully save money on bills – effectively penalizing those that conserve electricity, or have made home efficiency investments, and rewarding energy waste.”
The utility says the increased basic service charge would be to reduce a $7.8 million subsidy paid by ratepayers to benefit solar rooftop customers, and that it would have benefits for customers as well.
“A higher fixed charge creates more predictability in customer bills and … specifically decreases summer bills when usage and our customers’ bills is highest,” company official Janet Wells said in recent testimony.
NV Energy has also indicated it needs more revenue to cover inflationary pressures on its supply chains as well as to cover “higher day-to-day costs” since the pandemic ended with increased staffing levels.
Those against this proposal say low-income and low-usage customers will have higher bills, while heavy using energy wasting customers will see declines. What are your own views?