[quote]snipeout wrote:
stokedporcupine8 wrote:
You guys are missing my (admittedly minor) point, which is that the cost of water usage is probably not linear. IE, the actual cost of your utility usage isn’t given by some easy equation ‘cost=N*total used’ where N is the cost of providing you with 1 gallon of water or whatever. Since the cost of utilities isn’t linear the company cannot just apply some linear price scheme where you pay x amount for each gallon used. Since applying some sort of nonlinear price scheme would really confuse your average costumer and since the real cost of your utilities is probably a steep exponential curve that quickly tapers off at some point, it makes sense for the utility company to charge a “minimum usage” fee. What the minimum usage fee probably is is just some very crude nonlinear pricing scheme that corresponds to the actual nonlinear cost of usage.
Now it might be the case that the utility company is actually making some unreasonable profit because they hold some sort of monopoly, but you certainly can’t argue that minimum usage fees are intrinsically unfair pricing scheme. Besides, it’s not overcharging anyone if they agreed to pay in the first place. IE, when you hook up to the utility you know there will be a minimum usage fee and agree to pay it. Complaining to a judge about being “overcharged” in this way is like complaining about credit card companies hitting you with fees you agreed to pay when you signed the contract.
I could understand what you are saying if there wasn’t a nice little breakdown of cost per gallon plus a delivery fee. The water utility to credit card comparison is weak at best. If I don’t want to pay 24% interest I either pay my bills on time or select another card with a much lower rate. In an area where the MUA is the only option that is not an alternative. Not to mention the fact that they just approved a 62% hike in the cost of water per gallon.
[/quote]
As for the actual breakdown in your bill it probably means nothing–it is a breakdown of how they bill you, not of their actual costs (which are probably far to complicated to show you on some simple bill).
As for the credit card comparison being weak, the analogy of course breaks down at some points. As you say you have lots of choices with the credit card, not with your utilities, etc. The analogy holds though on the point I was trying to make, which was that in the end you agreed to the pricing set forth by the utility company. Hence I don’t see how a judge could deem the billing illegal in a way that would require costumers to be reimbursed. Now if the utility said they would charge you x, but charged you y, that would be different.
Again though I’m not saying that your particular utilities pricing is fair, nor that their monopoly isn’t allowing them to overcharge. My only points where that minimum usage fees aren’t intrinsically unfair–although they can be abused–and that I don’t see how any judge could rule some billing practices illegal and of warranting reimbursement if people agreed to pay them and they were billed accordingly. It seems that the correct way to handle abusive public utilities is through the legislature, not the courts.