05-15-2019, 05:20 AM
At the risk of feeding a troll, I'm going to respond to snorkle's last post. While honest discussion might be acceptable, outright lying about the financial implications of restarting PGV by a "leader" is just plain wrong. From the article:
"The letter said the commission “is not taking a position on whether PGV will, in fact, come back online, but rather is stating that if PGV does come back online, it should be under circumstances that take advantage of this opportunity to benefit HELCO ratepayers” by lowering the costs of electricity."
That doesn't sound like "costs more" to me. Also, PGV had previously agreed to abandon the old "avoided cost" formula for their power which did not result in consumer savings.
Ruderman is wrong in his assumptions and statement.
"The letter said the commission “is not taking a position on whether PGV will, in fact, come back online, but rather is stating that if PGV does come back online, it should be under circumstances that take advantage of this opportunity to benefit HELCO ratepayers” by lowering the costs of electricity."
That doesn't sound like "costs more" to me. Also, PGV had previously agreed to abandon the old "avoided cost" formula for their power which did not result in consumer savings.
Ruderman is wrong in his assumptions and statement.