If my granddaughter spent hundreds of her hard-earned money for a phone that only worked 39 percent of the time, I would tell her she was being foolish. If my son spent his hard-earned money on a car that only worked 39 percent of the time, I would tell him he was being foolish as well.
And if PSE&G’s customers spend billions on a plan which would only work (a little) for 39% percent of its customers, I would say that’s pretty foolish too.
PSE&G’s so-called “Energy Strong” plan is claimed to produce more reliable service during major storms. However, only 39 percent of PSE&G’s customers may see less frequent outages or for shorter durations (and we are talking about hours less, not days). Which means that 61 percent of its customers would see no benefit at all if another storm like Superstorm Sandy were to hit. PSE&G also claims that these billions in rate hikes would be used to shore up their infrastructure. However, it is the utility company’s legal statutory duty to provide safe, adequate, and reliable service. Simply put, AARP maintains customers absolutely should NOT have to pay more if PSE&G didn’t account for appropriate planning, ongoing maintenance, and system improvements.
Asking customers to fork over their hard-earned money for a product that might not work, and to compensate for PSE&G’s failings? Foolish indeed.
Rona SuttonAARP VolunteerMonroe