About utility shut offs .......

[Stinky The Clown]

.... I started a thread last night after watching nooz reports of how my state is trying to deal with our power company. Here ..... http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5412190

That thread went a little off track and the point seemed to me to have been missed.

See, here's the issue:

If one finds one cannot pay one's utility bill, should the utility have the right to shut off said utility?

Probably. But what about in the dead of winter and the utility to be shut off is the source of heat? How about then? Or should they be made to wait until the heating season is over to do it?

But what of the people unable to pay? Will they be somehow more able to pay come spring?

And what if we *do* shut off the utilities. Then what? Do we allow the people to stay in the house utility free? That's could well be life endangering.

But so is the alternative, which might be homelessness.

So it is a conundrum.

What is the right thing to do?

The utility company is a for profit business. And, to take their product and not pay for it is either stealing or .... well..... there is no "or" .... it is stealing. Maybe in the same vein as a hungry man stealing a loaf of bread, but stealing is stealing.

Then I come to the fact that we're a **society**. We are, indeed, our brother's keepers.

Or at least we ought to be when he needs to be kept.

Or not.

What do you think?

[Bunny]

1. In PA, it used to be that they could not shut off your heat or lights from

November - April, no matter how high your unpaid bill was. That changed in the last few years, and I think it's unconscionable.

[Orrex]

3. Not only is it unconscionable...

I also read recently that the new practice has done little or nothing to improve operating costs for utility companies--the stated justification for changing the policy in the first place!

:puke:

[Orrex]

2. Deregulation of utility companies is an unambiguous attack on the poor

In every case that I've heard about, the cost of utilities has spiked shortly after deregulation. This helps the wealthy and well-positioned at the expense of everyone else.

I would say that failure to pay for utilities is not stealing in the "loaf of bread" sense, because in most cases a basic contract exists between the utility provider and the customer prior to the theft. That is, by establishing the service, you enter into a contract under whose terms you agree to pay for the gas/oil/electricity that you use. If, after using one of these, you fail or are unable to pay, you are in breach of a civil contract, and the utility company has means by which it can seek to recover the cost. Perhaps it's "stealing" in a philosophical sense, but not in a criminal sense. Now, if you were to run a surreptitious extension cord out of your neighbor's house and use electricity that she's paying for, then that would be outright theft.

FWIW, numerous forms of income-based public assistance are available, and in many cases the simple act of enrolling in an assistance program will forestall the shutting off of electricity or gas (though I'm not sure about oil).

[MercutioATC]

4. I'm torn.

I agree that shutting off the gas or electricity when it's -10 poses a hazard, but utilities aren't shut off without notice.

It's a lousy alternative but if the customer can't pay the bill and doesn't want to die, they have ample time to make arrangements...even if the "arrangements" involve living in a shelter.

[Stinky The Clown]

6. Actually, that's kinda where I end up, too, when I think about this

If they can't pay the bill in January and February, and March, and half of April, why would they be more able to pay all that plus interest, plus their May bill, in May?

And that's where I start having impure thoughts.

Like a national Minimum Standard of Living that the "Cans" in this country agree, as part of their being citizens, to provide to the "Can'ts" Essentially, that would be called a 'tax'. And if my taxes, along with yours, and his, and his, and hers, and theirs, go directly to help others, I am all for it.

But that's probably being silly.

[MercutioATC]

8. It's not silly, but I don't know how realistic it is.

Actually, most utility companies have programs like this already. They subsidize the "have nots" through an extra fee that the "haves" pay. They also offer all sorts of programs to pay over time.


The issue is that there will always be people who can't pay. Some of these people will have what I would condider legitimate reasons, some will not. Where do you draw the line?

I believe it's reasonable to give ample warning after non-payment and require the customer to make arrangements.

[supernova]

10. This is where I think alt energy sources

can be the most useful.

Here's a story for you.

On the show Living with Ed, the Begley's visited Larry Hagman and his wife. He's become such a fan of solar, he not only powers his mansion and grounds, but also provides energy to, iirc, several of his neighbors. In this episode, he reported that his electric bill for the entire previous year was $13.

$13!!!

http://www.livingwithed.net/eguide.asp?CID=15&xepisode=Season%202

Clearly Larry Hagman has the resources to invest in the exorbitant start up. But, there is no reason this same principle can't be applied more widely. And I don't think grants will do the job. It has to be more like a subsidy, perhaps a percentage of your property taxes every year.

My main point is people who are chronically poor need the most to have their bills lowered as far down as they can go.

[MercutioATC]

13. This can be accomplished two ways...lots of money or sensible living.

This is the Unites States, so we'll forget about sensible living.

That leaves us with lots of money...and you're talking about investing, say, $30k in a house worth $20k.


There's just no money in it unless one is able to pay for it...and that doesn't really address the problem.

[Horse with no Name]

29. Just try to get the subsidies

It is virtually impossible. I've known single working women who had young children try to get assistance and there is none to be had.
I don't know if the freebies are given to someone's nephew...but I guarantee the majority of qualified folks in need have a hard time getting help.

[rurallib]

5. delete

[supernova]

7. In my utopia

;-)

I think the poorest of us should be among the first to get alternative energy sources, solar panels to power the hvac and hot water. Or set up homes with pellet stoves. Unless you are very elderly and/or ill, you can survive without AC in the summer. But you can't survive without heat in the winter. And with heavy gov't sponsorship. It would drastically reduce the amount the poorest of us would have to pay the utilities.

I do agree that deregulation of essential services, as utilities are, haven't produced the advertised benefits that proponents said they would: more choices of providers and therefore cheaper cost. Who among us has more than one, possibly two utilities to choose from? You move to a neighborhood and quickly learn who the lone supplier is.

edit: Oftentimes too, people with unpaid utility bills don't have the $$ to maintain their homes, either. Little to no weatherproofing, poor insulation -- all of which increase your bill. Double plus bad if you live in a cheaply constructed apt bldg. This is another activity that can be done in the summer with donated materials and volunteers.

[Kalyke]

19. I'd rather have the AC than the heat.

But I live in the South, so the summers are far more miserable than the winters.

[fasttense]

9. The utility companies should be non-profit..

Why do utilities corporations have a right to use our power grid to enrich themselves? Why should they have a right to use our police, fire departments, roads, educated employees, judicial system, military protection and social stability to make a profit? In a lot of cases utility corporations bought already functioning grids and systems from the government for pennies on the dollar. They are able to make a profit off of a system our tax dollars built.

It took forever for electricity to come to rural areas because corporations couldn't make enough money by servicing rural citizens. So, our government built the power grids.

So, NO, they have NO right to turn off the electricity. An 80 year old man down the road died when the power company here turn off his electricity. He froze to death. Every summer, four our five elderly people around here end up dying from heat exhaustion when the electricity is turned off in their homes by profit hungry corporations. Should corporations be allowed to kill people because they don't pay their bills?

Utilities have no Right to profit off our Nation just because they happened to have the money when the government was selling.

How can you steal what belongs to you anyway?

[Freddie Stubbs]

15. Publicly utilities will shut off your power if you do not pay the bill

Otherwise, what motive would people have to pay their bills?

[Orrex]

16. Health care should be expensive and privately insured

Otherwise, what motive would people have not to go to the ER ten times a week for unnecessary procedures?

[PeaceNikki]

11. We have a moratorium from November 1-April 15

A Wisconsin rule, adopted in 1984, prohibits utilities from disconnecting natural gas and electric service during the winter months, between November 1 and April 15. After April 15, utilities are not required to provide heat to customers who have not paid their bills and if payment arrangements have not been made.

[Lyric]

12. I object to "utility companies" at ALL when it comes to electric, water, and natural gas.

Those things are natural resources in large part, or are made with natural resources at least. The government should be running the operations to provide those resources to its citizens, and let us pay via taxes based on income level, not monthly bills. I strongly object to our public resources being sold back to us and withheld from us when we cannot pay. I strongly object to companies that rape our mountains for coal, destroy our environment for profit, run their businesses in sloppy, shoddy ways al-a Enron, and then bitch when some poor person can't cough up the ridiculous prices they set for the electricity they produce.

Basic, life-sustaining utilities should be owned, operated, and administered by the government we all pay for.

Cable, phone, and other "luxuries" I am fine with staying private.

And for the record, I think that poor people should NEVER have basic utils shut off when they can't pay. If we insist on handing our resources over to private companies like that, then let the government reimburse those companies when people cannot pay. The government can then recoup what it spent from tax income or tax credit withholding, if necessary, or write it off as charity spending. Let the government spend its dollars on THAT instead of giving them to groups like the Salvation Army who act as middlemen to accomplish the same damned thing.

[norepubsin08]

14. All Utility Companies Should Be Publicly Owned!

[kickysnana]

17. Back when utility service aid was easy to get MN passed a law condeming any home on shut off.

Once it is condemned they evict you, even if you own the house and of course tack on the fees for doing so. One can and I have lived OK with two elementary age kids without electricity, heat or running hot water from Sept-Dec 15th one year prior to this ruling. At that time public housing was more available also.

Now there are waiting lists for public housing and heating aid is scarce. This isPawlenty's race to the bottom. A majority of people still choose to believe that lots of help is available here for poor people and politicians here seem to have other things to do than see poor people.

The vilifying of Acorn was not by accident. During Regan's time we had a person who organized neighborhood meetings to try to address drugs, crime and other problems. People higher up in the city government fired her for being so diligent.

Break the unions, vilify community organizers, marginalize and blame the victim, the poor, send jobs away, bring foreigners in for jobs all is working according to plan.

An in law family in rural Illinois had no utilities and a hand pump and checked into a nearby hotel on a deep discount twice a month to "clean up" and use a nearby laundromat for years.

[Gormy Cuss]

18. Having been in a household where paying the utilities was a struggle, I'm against most shutoffs.

Where I lived growing up the law prohibited utility shut offs of essential service if there were young children or frail people in the household or in winter if the utility provided heat.

In our case that meant that our natural gas was shut off at least once a year because we heated with oil. We ran out of oil at least twice each winter but since it was pay as you go there was no formal shut off process. Unfortunately, our back up on those heatless days was to use the kitchen stove to warm up one room, thus spiking the gas bill.

When the natural gas was shut off it generally took a month to borrow and save up enough money to pay the arrears and to pay the reconnect fee. During that time we had no working stove and no hot water.

The electricity and water were never shut off. Our bills weren't that high and there was always a payment made on each. The electricity was usually two months in arrears.

We had no phone.

Even with essential utilities customers were required to demonstrate that they couldn't pay in full and were also required to pay something each month however. The usual way of documenting that one couldn't pay was to bring along proof of income when you made a payment.

Since I was the oldest kid, I was the one who walked to the gas company to make the partial payments necessary to forestall shutoffs or to make perpetually late payments to the other utilities. That's why I remember it so clearly. Paying in person also saved the cost of stamps and money orders.

So, given my own experience I'd say shutoffs should be limited to cases where there is no risk to health and safety of children or those in frail health, and that in those households there should be some guidelines on limiting usage and or public assistance programs rather than complete shut off.

[lonestarnot]

20. No shutoffs. Less profit!

[jazzjunkysue]

21. I put in a propane heater: $50/month for heat. 3 Br house in Connecticut.

My local gas company installed it for me.

If someone applies for assistance, then the government should provide them with one warm room and a sensible method for heating it.

But if you're in a huge leaky house you can't afford, with an old gas guzzling furnace, I think it's unrealistic for the government to heat the whole thing for you.

People need to take responsibility for their lives. I think there should be programs to go to senior citizen's homes and figure this kind of thing out for them, but they should not be left without heat in winter.

[Stinky The Clown]

22. "One warm room and a sensible method for heating it"

There is a great deal of merit in that. It is worth further discussion.

[Gormy Cuss]

23. One warm room -- that's all we had when there was no oil in the furnace.

Kitchen stove provided the heat. It was like camping! :sarcasm:

[Stinky The Clown]

25. I'm not saying it is nirvana, but this is a real conundrum

There is true merit in the arguments in favor cutting off utilities for non-payment, after due process.

..... on the other hand .....

There is true merit in finding a way to provide some minimal way to survive, even in the face of one's inability to pay one's utility bills.

The one warm room (I never thought of this until it was posted, above) seems a compromise worth at least discussion.

[Gormy Cuss]

26. I see several problems with that compromise. Some are practical considerations like frozen pipes

which can cause other and bigger problems. The bathroom would need to be included in that one warm room strategy, as would power for lights so that people aren't stumbling around in the dark or using candles for primary illumination.

Then there's the really odd presumption that we need to punish people in order to help them, and that's exactly what "one warm room" does. Would heating one room to warmth really save that much for utilities or society when one figures in the cost of implementation and monitoring? If the customer can demonstrate that nonpayment is based on inability to pay perhaps a better approach would be to offer services designed to reduce the cost, such as inexpensive energy efficient improvements like CFL bulbs, window glazing and shrink plastic to act as storm windows. These aren't novel ideas. There have been targeted energy efficiency programs over the years.

There's also room for reducing the cost to the actual usage without all the added fees. A big component of cost for many low income households is that fixed amount for just having the service in the first place, and the miscellaneous taxes. Tax forgiveness strikes me as a pretty easy fix.

Those are just top of my head ideas to address it differently.

[Stinky The Clown]

27. Every one of your idea have merit

[specialed]

24. LIHEAP PROGRAMS...

If you don't make enough to afford your utilities then through the state LIHEAP programs, every state has them, then you can apply for assistance in paying.

Most states have shut off circumstances that require service to continue under certain time frames and conditions you can find those codes in your states utility regulations.

[Horse with no Name]

28. NECESSARY services shouldn't be "for profit"

Take Texas for example. The last big "fuck you very much" from the governorship of bush was the deregulation of electricity. Was "supposed" to bring down prices and make things cheaper, however, it didn't do either and since the PUC had already been whored out, they don't give two shits that Texans are now paying some of the HIGHEST rates in the country.
Most Texans pay substantially more for their electricity and have since the deregulation.