Only a measily $10 for windows!   My gosh recently got estimates on just three windows, it was $3,000!  We got a second estimate that was about $1,700.  And so what, $30 we get for spending a couple thousand.  And how much would we save on our heat bill, we already keep the thermostat at around 62 unless it really gets on subzero.  How many years would it take to save $3,000?  

Again, the high pressure salesmen in cahoots with National Grid it sounds like.    Profits for them, just like the profits in the oil companies

http://www.dailygazette.com

Quoted Text

CAPITOL
Utility pushes energy savings effort
National Grid asks for rate hike
BY JASON SUBIK Gazette Reporter

    National Grid on Monday released details of a three-year, $220 million electric and gas energy efficiency program aimed at reducing consumption through promotion of energy-efficient technology. National Grid wants to pay for the program by raising electricity rates and adding a new charge.
    Company officials said the New York Public Service Commission, which regulates the state’s utility companies, has been asked to expedite consideration and approval of the plan by October. If the PSC agrees, an additional $1.50 system benefits charge will be added monthly to both the electric and natural gas bills of residential, commercial and industrial customers in National Grid’s New York service territory.
    Under National Grid’s proposal, the money collected from the charge would be used to pay for programs similar to some programs offered by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, which itself receives funding from National Grid and existing system benefits charges.
    “We do not expect to compete with NYSERDA in any way. Our programs are designed to enhance and complement NYSERDA’s current program,” said Susan Crossett, National Grid’s vice president for energy solutions in upstate New York.
    National Grid customers who choose to participate in the energy savings programs could receive up to 75 percent of the cost of installing up to $5,000 worth of new insulation. Other incentives offered in the program include $50 toward the purchase of an energy-efficient clothes washer, $10 per window toward the price of energy-efficient windows and $25 for programmable thermostats.
    In addition to the systems benefit charge, National Grid wants to raise its energy rates to make up for lost revenue likely to occur when less energy is consumed.
    “When we run a program like this, we lose revenue,” Crossett said. “Under the current process for setting our utility rates, our company’s revenues increase when energy use goes up [but not when] customers reduce consumption through actions such as energy efficiency. As part of this initiative, we’re proposing that we be allowed to recover the loss of delivery revenue that would result from the successful implementation of the program.”
    National Grid officials estimate the 4.4 million megawatts of electricity consumption the program is expected to eliminate is worth $350 million.
    PSC spokesman James Denn said any utility can pass on increased fuel costs to consumers in the form of rate hikes without PSC approval, but a utility may only raise electricity rates based on transmission costs if the PSC approves the rate increase, usually after a review process of 11 months.
    “[National Grid’s] current rate plan runs until 2011; they had a 10-year rate plan. Every two years they can come in and ask for an adjustment if they need to. [This proposal] is not considered a rate filing, so there’s no clock on it,” Denn said. “They have the ability to request to pass program costs on to the consumer. This petition will be reviewed.”
    National Grid’s vice president of energy efficiency, Tim Stout, said National Grid’s plan would enable them to raise electricity rates in equal proportion to whatever revenues are lost.
    Crossett said National Grid’s proposal should help New York state meet a 15 percent reduction in electricity consumption by 2015, the “15 by 15” program championed by former Gov. Eliot Spitzer and continued by Gov. David Paterson. She said electricity consumption reductions should also reduce carbon dioxide emissions linked to global warming.
    The New York Public Interest Research Group criticized the plan.
    “This is not a good deal for consumers,” NYPIRG Legislative Counsel Russ Haven said. “In the past, power companies had a fixed rate of return, where now it’s a free market and they only make money if they sell energy, and it’s clear we need to conserve energy to save people money and protect the environment. So they’re saying that ‘we need to be assured that we’ll be compensated if we do a good job at it.’ ”
    Stout argued that the rate increases will provide an even stronger incentive to consumers to participate in the energy savings programs.
    “With higher energy prices, we expect that once the programs are well established, a lot more customers will be coming to us to participate, as opposed to being driven by the marketing of the program,” he said. “While they can’t all participate in one year, because of a limited budget, they can all participate over time, so it’s to the advantage of every customer to participate in the program.”
    If National Grid’s plan is approved, electricity rates won’t go up until after the first year of the program, officials said. Customers also will gain access to the programs on a first-come, fi rstserved basis, as funding will be limited.
    “You can’t take care of everybody, with 1.5 million customers, all at once,” Crossett said.

Quoted Text

National Grid customers who choose to participate in the energy savings programs could receive up to 75 percent of the cost of installing up to $5,000 worth of new insulation. Other incentives offered in the program include $50 toward the purchase of an energy-efficient clothes washer, $10 per window toward the price of energy-efficient windows and $25 for programmable thermostats.
    In addition to the systems benefit charge, National Grid wants to raise its energy rates to make up for lost revenue likely to occur when less energy is consumed.

So this is where our $1.50/month will go, huh? So my money will be going into the pocket of the guy up the street for buying new energy appliances. WE will be re-warding people for becoming energy efficient..not National Grid. And our $1.50/month will also go into the pockets of National Grid when they just aren't making enough money cause everyone will become energy efficient through THEIR PROGRAM therefore creating a lack of revenue created by THEM!! Do they think we are stupid?

They can kiss my ---!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

we need to get better educated so the propaganda machines will grind to a halt..................

For the months of July and August we shouldn't pay our bill........

http://www.timesunion.com
Marv Cermak

Quoted Text

Nostalgic talk fueled by painful gas reality
First published: Tuesday, May 6, 2008

An unplanned, wide-ranging bull session with upper Union Street business owners Mike Mastroianni and Peter Musler was dominated by -- you guessed it -- the holdup at the gas pump.
     
Mastroianni's family founded Michael's Shoe Service in 1926, the same year a brand new Proctor's opened. Ironically, the Musler family longevity in women's wear sales started the same year.
The two men recalled when paying a buck for a gallon of gas was not a bargain. Because of my advanced age, I remember when one dollar got you five gallons. We replayed filling station tales from the so-called good old days.
"You used to get the extras without charge," Mastroianni said. "Sometimes three attendants attacked your car. Those days are long gone."
Besides pumping gas, attendants routinely checked your oil and tire pressure and washed your windshield. If you asked, they also looked at your radiator, transmission and brake fluid levels.
Now get this! While we live in the era of obligated tipping for many purchases we make, these guys got their hands greasy just for a "thank you" or less.
I recall all that free service when gas was selling for 20 cents a gallon. Nowadays, you do the pumping and get none of the aforementioned services despite paying nearly four bucks a gallon. That folks, is progress.
$10 a gallon?
In a similar economic vein, some guys I speak with regularly say they must use their federal rebate money for vehicle fuel. They drive to work for a paycheck that through withholding taxes will enable the government to recoup the rebate.
You have to admit the feds are imaginative when it comes to new methods of ripping off taxpayers. Joe Allen last week told his Schenectady City Council colleagues he's heard experts predict gas will be $10 a gallon sooner than later. Randy Loren, longtime local vocalist, agrees with the 10-buck possibility based on some analyst projections.
Anyway, I have advice for people receiving the rebate check via mail instead of direct deposit. Since the whole world knows our dollar is like Swiss cheese, it might be wise to cash the check as soon as possible.
I think other global powers are starting to believe there are two sets of books in Washington. Better cash that check before it bounces.

http://www.dailygazette.com

Quoted Text

EDITORIALS
Don’t make us pay more to use less energy

    The New York State Energy and Research and Development Authority — a rudderless ship now that CEO Paul Tonko has resigned in search of greener pastures — has done a decent job promoting energy-efficiency among state utility customers, but not a great one. Still, the idea of a private utility, National Grid, starting up a program that would basically compete with NYSERDA’s effort does not strike us as particularly productive — mostly because National Grid proposes to raise rates not only to cover the program’s costs but the amount of money it would lose if the program succeeds and customers consume less power.
    National Grid is primarily a middleman in the power business. Thus if people — for any reason — started buying more energy-efficient refrigerators, replacement windows and furnaces, and they did a better job insulating their homes, the company wouldn’t make as much money. Too bad, but not a justification for letting the company raise rates.
    Consumers are supposed to be rewarded for using less energy, not penalized. While everyone would be rewarded under National Grid’s plan in terms of air quality, the net financial impact would be nil.
    What the state needs to do is make NYSERDA more aggressive, not just doing more to spread the gospel to New Yorkers about these energy-efficient products, but giving them more help to buy them. The money could come from an additional utility tax (known as a system benefits charge) or from general revenues, which the state isn’t exactly flush with at the moment. But better administration of a statewide program at NYSERDA — as opposed to a competing program run by one of the state’s utilities that ends up raising rates — makes more sense for ratepayers.

...and I almost got into an accident because of a National Grid driver.  I got off of the Thruway at Exit 25A today and was waiting for a truck to come across the bridge, that was getting ready to go down onto I-88.  Well, I was waiting at the stop sign, when a National Grid pick-up truck decided that he was going to go around the right hand side of me and cut off the 18-wheeler, that could have done anything, if he needed to correct, including running into the pick-up truck, myself and/or taking lives into consideration.  I have reported this to National Grid and am waiting for a call back from them.  Hey, at least he saved gas by not sitting at the stop sign another 10 seconds.

Quoted from bumblethru

So this is where our $1.50/month will go, huh? So my money will be going into the pocket of the guy up the street for buying new energy appliances. WE will be re-warding people for becoming energy efficient..not National Grid. And our $1.50/month will also go into the pockets of National Grid when they just aren't making enough money cause everyone will become energy efficient through THEIR PROGRAM therefore creating a lack of revenue created by THEM!! Do they think we are stupid?

What is stupid is not conserving energy-

Let me give you a hard actual fact-  My elderly mother used to spend $300- $ 350 , as a tenant for heat during the coldest months- living in a duplex on Division St-

Now living at Holly Manor ( she pays utilities ) She has NEVER   had a heat/electric bill over $ 45- yes- no bull-
That place is insulated very well with a very high thermal value.

Come on take some responsability and quit whinning- tighten up- save yourself some $$$$$ insulate

I couldn't agree with you more. But you must remember that these apartments are pretty well sheltered from the outside elements. They are pretty much surrounded(attatched) by other apartments on each side. Well all except for the end apartments of course. That really does make a big difference in most apartment complexes.

Quoted from Sombody

What is stupid is not conserving energy-

Let me give you a hard actual fact-  My elderly mother used to spend $300- $ 350 , as a tenant for heat during the coldest months- living in a duplex on Division St-

Now living at Holly Manor ( she pays utilities ) She has NEVER   had a heat/electric bill over $ 45- yes- no bull-
That place is insulated very well with a very high thermal value.

Come on take some responsability and quit whinning- tighten up- save yourself some $$$$$ insulate

I wouldn't debate with you at all that it's a good thing to save energy, whether this means turning down the thermostat a few extra degrees (which I did last year) or turning around and restoring / updating your house to make sure that insulation is up to standard (something I'll be working on for a while after realizing that the entire first floor of my house has no insulation on the exterior walls).  

What I WOULD debate is whether or not ANY entity, government or otherwise (and I put National Grid under both of these with all their fees and taxes), has the "right" to charge me any additional amount, fee or tax, to turn around and reward me for making a decision that would benefit myself and the community by the fact that I wouldn't be using as much energy.  This should come in a single line on my bill, not as a fee for conservation, but as a discount.  That discount would be seen in the line where it says kilowatthours used.  For my electricity, if I use the right appliances, this number should be lower.  For my gas, the number of therms should be lower.  Either of these, therefore, making my bill less, not expecting a kickback like I'm something special to the power company.

When energy first became a concern we all put extra insulation in our attics, foam insulation under our vinyl siding, replaced our old windows, and turned the thermostat down and National Grid[NIMO] then just raised their rates to make up the difference in their profits when we spent less on electric and gas bills.

Quoted from Shadow

When energy first became a concern we all put extra insulation in our attics, foam insulation under our vinyl siding, replaced our old windows, and turned the thermostat down and National Grid[NIMO] then just raised their rates to make up the difference in their profits when we spent less on electric and gas bills.

BINGO!!!! it's a commodity that we all use and 'need' for all intense purposes.....

energy
transportation
food

all ways to move the mice through the maze and stop once in awhile to build a golden calf and then move on.......

right now someone has remove the straw for the bricks for some reason.......Moses is where????

http://www.dailygazette.com

Quoted Text

Consumers will face higher energy bills
BY JASON SUBIK Gazette Reporter
Reach Gazette reporter Jason Subik at 395-3198 or jsubik@dailygazette.net.

    New York Public Service Commission Chairman Garry Brown assured utility company officials Wednesday that electricity and gas rates they charge New York residents and businesses will be going up, no matter what.
    “The worldwide demand for fuel is going to result in high energy prices and that frankly means our electricity prices are going up,” he said.
    The PSC regulates New York’s utility companies and has final say over rate increases related to transmission costs, but not fuel commodity costs, which utilities can pass on to consumers without a vote by the commission.
    Brown represented the PSC at the annual meeting of the Independent Power Producers of New York on Wednesday at the Desmond Hotel in Colonie. He said since New York deregulated its electricity markets beginning in 1998, the cost of oil has jumped from $14 a barrel to $124, natural gas has soared from $2.15 to $11 per 1,000 cubic feet, and the price of Appalachian coal has risen from $34 a ton to $102.
    “Way too much time has been spent lately arguing about [restructuring deregulation] and frankly I think it’s a lot of wasted time. We’re trying to invent a regulatory regime that is going to take these basic economic factors and make them go away and they’re not going to go away,” he said. “As these prices go up the only chance for people to reduce their bill impacts is to save” energy use through energy-efficiency measures.
    However, the PSC has created a mechanism for utilities to raise their rates if energy use goes down, thus eliminating any savings for New Yorkers.
    Otherwise, if consumer demand for electricity goes down in New York’s deregulated electricity markets, utilities will lose money — unless they lower their prices to stimulate more demand.
    Brown said the PSC has developed policies to remove the incentive for companies to reduce electricity rates to increase sales because the commission is dedicated to Gov. David Paterson’s “15 by 15” goal to reduce electricity consumption by 15 percent beneath the projected consumption levels of 2015. That plan is part of several proposals by Paterson to reduce New York’s carbon dioxide emissions, linked to global warming.
    “We have something called a ‘revenue decoupling method,’ which is trying to make sure utilities [don’t have incentives] to keep on increasing sales in order to make money, so they can get a return even if there isn’t sales growth,” he said.
    On April 18, 2007, the PSC directed utility companies to develop proposals for revenue decoupling mechanisms, known as RDMs, that would allow them to increase rates in proportion to the amount ratepayers conserve energy, to offset lost revenues. The PSC’s stated goal of the program was to create an incentive for utilities to participate in energy savings programs and “limit unnecessary load growth and delay or possibly avoid the installation of costly new distribution, transmission or generation facilities.”
    Since then the PSC has approved RDMs for three utilities — Central Hudson Gas & Electric, NFG Co. and Con Edison Co. — as part of rate plan renewals, according to staff of the New York Public Service Department.
    National Grid last week applied for early consideration of an RDM, even though its rate plan runs through 2011, as part of a package of proposals to create energy savings programs. Some of the programs included providing customers with 75 percent of the cost of new insulation up to $5,000, $50 toward the purchase of an energy-efficient clothes washer, $10 per window toward the price of energy-efficient windows and $25 for programmable thermostats. The total cost of the program was estimated by National Grid to be $220 million, which it has asked the PSC to allow it to pass on to customers in the form of a $1.50 monthly charge applied separately to both electricity and natural gas bills.
    National Grid officials told reporters in a conference call last week that the RDM they’ve submitted to the PSC is meant to allow them to increase rates to recover 100 percent of revenues lost from customers using less energy.
    William Flynn, National Grid’s vice president of government relations, attended the IPPNY meeting Wednesday. He said National Grid needs assurance that energy efficiency programs will not reduce the company’s revenues.
    “With every kilowatt hour that we sell to our customers we recoup an investment [for infrastructure] — debt that we pay over a period of time,” Flynn said. “In this era of energy efficiency, which we are extremely for, our structure does not allow us to continually support our investment in infrastructure and continue supporting [reduced energy use]. Quite frankly, if it puts us in a position where we can’t continue to pay our debt . . . it would erode our ability to support our infrastructure.”
    A rate increase application to the PSC normally takes 11 months from submission to approval, but approved RDMs can enable a faster rate increase, officials said. So far none of the companies with RDMs approved by the PSC has applied to use the plan to get a rate increase because of less energy sold.
    Heather Briccetti, the Business Council of New York’s vice president of government affairs, said she doesn’t expect less energy will be consumed.
    “This is a fantasy, use is not going down. Everyone’s got a Blackberry, everyone’s got a laptop. Those things are electricity-based. There is absolutely no way you are going to see a reduction in use,” she said. “This is all sort of pie in the sky.”

Mobil at Burdeck and Campbell Ave is now at $3.93.

Mobil in Warrensburg was $4.05 for high test and regular was $.20 a gal less last Sunday when I was there.