Letters to the Editor

Con Ed: What's Wrong With This Picture?

In response to Kirsten Danis' article (NY Post 7/31/00 "Finding best power deal is a turnoff")

I suggest we take a closer look at the real issue regarding electricity restructuring. Only our electricity supply, which makes up a mere 25% of our total bill, is open to the market. What about the other 75% transmission and distribution costs included in the bill? This 75% is controlled by Con Edison with the blessing of the Public Service Commission.

I live in a 424-unit complex in Forest Hills, Queens. Our building burns more fuel during the summer than the winter. We are master metered. Our management office received a bill for the period June 22 to July 24. During this period our air-conditioning broke down and we were without it for ten days. We also replaced 400 hallway fixtures with more energy efficient ones. Nevertheless our bill increased 56%! We have been tracking our electric bills since 1994. During the summer months we usually pay between $1,100 to $1,200 per day. Yet this billing period, when we used less electricity and added energy efficient fixtures we paid $2,000 per day. What's wrong with this picture?

Our bill is divided into 3 components: kilowatt hours used, demand charge (charge for peak electricity demand), and an adjustment factor (fuel surcharge). Our kilowatt-hours and demand charge for 6/22-7/24 were our lowest ever. The fuel surcharge was double the highest amount we have ever been billed. The surcharge is $3.8844 per gallon even though we buy Number 6 fuel at less than .90 a gallon. What's wrong with this picture?

When will the media uncover and consumers discover the real reasons behind the increases in our electricity bills? It's not just market forces. It's Con Ed wanting to continue its monopoly of the market.

Cooperatively yours,

Greg Carlson, President

Federation of NY Housing Cooperatives