Pages

Thursday, December 13, 2012

Most Regressive "Tax" To Increase in Minnesota

Click here for StarTribune.com.

So, here it is.

Cue up Connie Stevens.

Minnesota's electricity rates will be raised 9% (numbers rounded).

And in 2013, likely to be raised another 10%.

No inflation.

Prior to 2006, there had been no rate increases for thirteen -- repeat, thirteen -- years. But now, this is the fifth rate increase in seven years for Xcel customers.

I could be mistaken but 2006 was about the time we first started hearing about "green energy" mandates. Prior to 2006, I assume most of Minnesota's electricity was produced by inexpensive North Dakota coal. Now, two new nuclear reactors. The story does not mention wind energy, unless I missed it. Actually, I am surprised there are two new nuclear reactors. Don reminds me that Minnesota does have a "25 by 25" campaign (25% renewable rate by 2025) which will further increase utility costs (solar is about 3x the cost of coal; I can never get a good figure on wind). But I digress.

The story:
The increase, Xcel said, is needed to recoup investments in its two nuclear power plants, counter a drop in electric sales and pay for other power plant and transmission upgrades and higher property taxes.
As part of the increase, all residential customers will pay an extra $2 for the basic service charge.
It is the fifth electric rate hike for Minnesota Xcel customers in seven years. The cumulative increases since 2006 have raised a typical customer's monthly bill $11.45, the utility said. The January bump goes on top of that.
The good news: the nine percent only amounts to a couple of six packs of beer, or a McDonald's meal for two, each month. For residential customers, this is not a big deal. For industry ... hey, North Dakota just got cheaper ... on a relative basis.''

 ********************

Meanwhile, in Colorado:

Xcel Energy on Wednesday asked the Colorado Public Utilities Commission for a three-year, 3.6 percent rate hike to cover the cost of upgrading its aging natural-gas pipelines.

If approved, the new rates would take effect in August, increasing bills for the average residential customer by 2.1 percent in 2013 and by 5.8 percent and 2.8 percent in the subsequent two years.
And, so it goes. 

2 comments:

  1. This is only the beginning.

    Currently at the higher end of the income tax brackets, it costs $500 more per month to live in Minnesota versus North Dakota; >$1000+ per month for Minnesota compared to Texas or Florida.

    For this we get atrocious roads, overpaid public sector workers, and dysfunctional schools and other public services. After Democrats are done at the next legislative session, I expect higher-income Minnesotan's (you know the ones who work for a living) will be paying >$1000 per month in income taxes compared to North Dakotans.

    And soon many of us will be leaving the State of Minnesota as quickly as possible.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's difficult for a lot of folks to move but companies will certainly be affected, particularly companies that use a lot energy, like high tech.

      Delete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.