On Tuesday, October 27, the Florida Public Service Commission (PSC) voted to delay rendering a decision on Progress Energy's petition for a rate increase.
In late July, the state utility regulators held a customer service hearing at the Apalachicola Battery Park Community Center to take testimony on the services and other matters related to Progress Energy’s petition.
According to an email, City Administrator Betty Taylor-Webb received on Sunday, November 1, from Progress Energy's Senior Account Executive, Gary L. Renfro. The PSC voted at the October hearing to delay ruling on the power company's $591 million proposed rate increase until mid-to-late January 2010.
At that time, if the PSC approves all of Progress Energy's filings, the projected average increase in the base rate would be around 4 to 9 percent for commercial customers and 6 to 13 percent for industrial customers.
Renfro also wrote that the delayed vote was for an increase in the base rate portion of the customer’s power bill and not the fuel charge. Fuel is a separate billing component.
At the hearing, representatives from Progress Energy told the PSC that they needed the higher rates in order to provide some “certainty” for planning and budgeting.
In late July, the state utility regulators held a customer service hearing at the Apalachicola Battery Park Community Center to take testimony on the services and other matters related to Progress Energy’s petition.
According to an email, City Administrator Betty Taylor-Webb received on Sunday, November 1, from Progress Energy's Senior Account Executive, Gary L. Renfro. The PSC voted at the October hearing to delay ruling on the power company's $591 million proposed rate increase until mid-to-late January 2010.
At that time, if the PSC approves all of Progress Energy's filings, the projected average increase in the base rate would be around 4 to 9 percent for commercial customers and 6 to 13 percent for industrial customers.
Renfro also wrote that the delayed vote was for an increase in the base rate portion of the customer’s power bill and not the fuel charge. Fuel is a separate billing component.
At the hearing, representatives from Progress Energy told the PSC that they needed the higher rates in order to provide some “certainty” for planning and budgeting.
No comments:
Post a Comment