Block · one region of the page, as the scanner read it. It may hold a whole story, part of one, several, or an advertisement; stitching blocks into articles is the next step. Text is supplied OCR.
Page 4 · column 3 of 9 · from the scan, no model involved
position correctly, the utilities would prefer to keep a system which discourages conservation, benefits the highvolume users, and socks the less affluent low-volume users with electric bills at the topdollar rate.
Further, they would like for the taxpayers to pick up the tab in those cases where low-income subscribers can't meet their payments. Hence, the indirect government subsidy mentioned above.
Conversion to the lifeline rating system would be a dramatic departure from that presently used, and it is only one of several devices being considered by the State Corporation Commission to benefit the ratepayers. The SCC staff studies will not be completed until September, 1980, and no action will be possible before the 1981 General Assembly.
Although the Subcommittee took no action, it is expected to adopt a resolution strongly urgining the SCC to consider favorably the lifeline concept. As Scott correctly pointed out to Teel and Crump, lifeline rating and necessary government assistance are not mutually exclusive.
Indeed, both may be needed if utility rates and inflation continue to soar while fixed incomes remain fixed and the purchasing power of the dollar continues to dwindle.
Nevertheless, the utilities and their allies in the General Assembly can be expected to wage a continuing battle for higher rates and a lower participating role by government in utility operations.
Except, of course, that role in which the government pays the bill for some of their hard-pressed subscribers.
95.9%