Recent comments in /f/providence

AislingQuinn t1_j4e2dk9 wrote

Yes! It will be very useful. I've watched the development over the past few months. It feels as if it was built overnight lmao. As a person who can't drive, (I get rides from family members) the train station is a very good thing. Also I expect the traffic near the station to be quite chaotic, if all the other train stations I've been to are anything to go by.

7

infestans t1_j4c8636 wrote

Yep it should all be in the minutes. But then why would we approve it? Our service has not improved, efficiencies have not improved, there was no benefit for the end user except a rate hike so two companies could trade the state like a pokemon card. We could have just said no! Literally no reason to approve it. We get a rate hike (which they also approved!) and nothing else!

2

rakman t1_j4c6ajc wrote

It doesn’t make a whole lot of sense since rates are regulated. Also, “raise margins to pay off acquisition costs” is pretty standard business practice, you don’t buy a business if it’s not accretive to profits. I’m not an expert on public records but I assume this would have been captured in the hearing minutes?

1

infestans t1_j4c5szd wrote

In the hearing the AG (or the public utilities commission i can't remember which one) asked how they (PPL) were planning on financing the cost of the acquisition and they said very bluntly they planned on paying for it by recouping that cost from ratepayers.

No new sources of income or anything, just raise margin on customers and use that profit to pay off the purchase.

So even absent the increase in raw gas and electric costs we were going to get a 40% increase (IIRC) in their off-the-top add on charges just for the luxury of a name change basically

2