Rate hike plan covered in obscuring gas

Excuse our pessimism, but a proposal by Peoples and North Shore gas companies strikes us as yet another rate hike hidden in yet another novel billing plan that makes it impossible for consumers to understand.

As such, a billing technique called decoupling is exactly what consumers do not need in that it creates confusion over the cost of a basic necessity. And that can be a deterrent to conservation -- which ought to be an intrinsic part of all our energy use -- if it makes it unclear how bill payers can control that cost. And, of course, other providers like Nicor Gas are watching closely to see if "decoupling" might benefit them, too.

Don't be deceived. The decoupling plan was proposed because a rate hike for this part of a consumer's bill, the delivery charge, was proposed 11 months ago and rejected in November. So now comes the decoupling plan, which basically reduces costs during winter, when the gas is actually being used, and raises them in the summer, by a set amount.

But there is little doubt it is not proposed for the benefit of consumers, nor will it be a wash, cost-wise. The attorney general and the Citizens Utility Board estimated that had the decoupling plan been in place over the last five years, Peoples would have collected an additional $218 million. Guess who would have provided that extra cash? Exactly.

And a spokeswoman for Nicor, which is looking on expectantly, couldn't have made it more plain.

"… In general, we are supportive of a regulation that will allow utilities to encourage more conservation efforts without resulting in negative financial consequences to the companies and provides more stability of earnings for investors," Annette Martinez said.

In other words, consumer conservation will be bad for utilities' bottom lines, so utilities are trying to find another way to sock consumers and assure the status quo doesn't change.

Though his answer was buried in gobbledygook, even Peoples gas spokesman Rod Sierra provided the bottom line. Asked if the decoupling would mean higher bills, he responded, "in many cases, yes, but stable."

We're guessing most consumers would take "unstable" over "higher" in today's economic climate. And no matter how the proposal is obscured by language, this plan is nothing but a rate hike for the cost of delivering natural gas. It isn't to help consumers, encourage conservation or balance seasonal costs.

The question that remains unanswered, of course, is whether it reflects the actual costs of delivery and therefore is a fair increase. Or is it merely manipulation of one part of a gas bill that is alterable?

It will take a lot more convincing and a lot more clarity on the part of gas companies to prove this is anything but a cash grab hidden amid obfuscation.