NU Says It's Stepping Up Customer-Service Focus

Jul 25, 2008 Read more: Hartford Courant 39
Connecticut Light & Power no longer serves "ratepayers," only "customers." And there's no longer such a thing as a "low-income" household, only "limited-income." It's all part of a new language that's heralding ... Read more
First Prev
of 2
Next Last
bsa

Boston, MA

#24 Jul 26, 2008
Paul Bahre wrote:
Let me get this right. We pay the highest electricity rates in the country. My power has gone out 3 times in the last week or so. Every time I call them it's well "Bad Weather" or "Heavy Load". They wouldn't need such massive call centers if they could keep the electricity flowing every time it got inclement.
And from now on when you call you'll get that voice that sounds like a love songs mellow sounds DJ that says "your call is very important to us please stay on the line".
Get Real

Granby, CT

#25 Jul 26, 2008
Jack wrote:
I am glad we Ratepayers, excuse me customers have Mr. Maywood, who I bet makes about 350K with a car and a sweet pension from Baltimore Gas and Electric to make us use the PC terms.
Are you kidding? He most likely makes at least double that...and then there are the perks and bonuses.
reader

AOL

#28 Jul 26, 2008
wow you guys complain about the poor service then complain when they try to fix it. this article has nothing to do with rates. it has to do with the way the customer treats and deals with the customers.
but please, go on with your complaining while you sit on your rears but don't take action and get your legislation to lower the rates. call the dpuc for some info.
Jeff P

Middletown, CT

#29 Jul 26, 2008
Ricky..your comments are misdirected.
CL&P operates the energy efficiency fund in consultation with a group of people, including the AG's office, the OCC, environmental proponents, and low income advocates. CL&P funds programs based on what this group, the ECMB approves. Further, they only fund "energy efficiency" programs, not renewable programs. Those are managed by the quasi-state agency the Clean Energy Fund.
I blame the CT Clean Energy Fund for your issues. They have been underspending their budget for several years. You should be blaming them for not funding more PV projects. The Clean Energy Fund spends more on consultants, lawyers, and conferences than projects.
CL&P's work on energy efficiency puts them at the top of national surveys.
Mario

Middletown, CT

#30 Jul 26, 2008
It's nice to see such good news about NU. CL&P employees work hard to provide us with good service. All of my experiences with CL&P have been good ones.

It is easy to complain about the regulated public utility, but difficult to seek out the truth.

Way to go Lynn!
Jack

Glen Cove, NY

#31 Jul 26, 2008
Jeff P wrote:
Ricky..your comments are misdirected.
CL&P operates the energy efficiency fund in consultation with a group of people, including the AG's office, the OCC, environmental proponents, and low income advocates. CL&P funds programs based on what this group, the ECMB approves. Further, they only fund "energy efficiency" programs, not renewable programs. Those are managed by the quasi-state agency the Clean Energy Fund.
I blame the CT Clean Energy Fund for your issues. They have been underspending their budget for several years. You should be blaming them for not funding more PV projects. The Clean Energy Fund spends more on consultants, lawyers, and conferences than projects.
CL&P's work on energy efficiency puts them at the top of national surveys.
C,L & P does not "operate" the energy efficiency fund. The energy efficiency fund is basically the new name for the Conservation and Load Management Fund. It is basically a tax outside of the radar. State bureaucrats and appointees get to dictate how millions of [tax] dollars are spent outside of the 'normal' view of public scrutiny. A regime ripe for mismanagment and corruption. But, this is Connecticut. The only reason why PV is so heavily subsidized is because some connected people have interests in PV. Again, this is Connecticut (probably up there with LA and NV in the corruption department).
the Badger

United States

#32 Jul 27, 2008
I am with you 101%.

I think they are shifting this way because they are afraid of competition. Once another supplier can carve a niche around here their days will be numbered. Agree?

Also, any guess as to how much Johnny makes?$300,000.00?
what a joke wrote:
Why would anyone judge my post as clueless and nuts? Do I speak the truth?
the Badger

United States

#33 Jul 27, 2008
AAAH HA HA HA!!! Good one! LMAO
shwee wrote:
<quoted text>
I guess that's what he learned when he went to college at Johns Hopkins. All of his Asian classmates must have made some extra coin by doing laundry on the side!
joey

Glastonbury, CT

#34 Jul 27, 2008
Jeff P wrote:
Ricky..your comments are misdirected.
CL&P operates the energy efficiency fund in consultation with a group of people, including the AG's office, the OCC, environmental proponents, and low income advocates. CL&P funds programs based on what this group, the ECMB approves. Further, they only fund "energy efficiency" programs, not renewable programs. Those are managed by the quasi-state agency the Clean Energy Fund.
I blame the CT Clean Energy Fund for your issues. They have been underspending their budget for several years. You should be blaming them for not funding more PV projects. The Clean Energy Fund spends more on consultants, lawyers, and conferences than projects.
CL&P's work on energy efficiency puts them at the top of national surveys.
And CL&P charges huge overhead to the conservation fund and also benefits from the float on money collected from everyone's bill.
Ricky

Merrimack, NH

#35 Jul 27, 2008
Jack wrote:
<quoted text>
C,L & P does not "operate" the energy efficiency fund. The energy efficiency fund is basically the new name for the Conservation and Load Management Fund. It is basically a tax outside of the radar. State bureaucrats and appointees get to dictate how millions of [tax] dollars are spent outside of the 'normal' view of public scrutiny. A regime ripe for mismanagment and corruption. But, this is Connecticut. The only reason why PV is so heavily subsidized is because some connected people have interests in PV. Again, this is Connecticut (probably up there with LA and NV in the corruption department).
So who do we go to get to the bottom of this?

About 5 or 6 years ago, Rowland & Co. eviscerated the Load Management division by closing them down and hijacking the $84 million collected annually for conservation through our electric bills. That funding, amounting to almost half a BILLION dollars since the money was diverted and representing almost the entire state surplus during the "surplus" days was spent on other state projects, not conservation nor renewable energy projects. Without that guiding force for conservation, our usage skyrocketed along with our bills. Thank you Mr. Rowland. Your legacy continues.

Who do we go to correct this fiasco? There were elements in that last energy bill that would have helped, but most got dropped by the final version. It's time that the citizens took control back of their public utilities.

I have not seen our state legislature make any meaningful changes. Their "conserve" directive is laughable and impotent. We DO conserve, for instance by converting to compact fluorescent bulbs, saving 50% or more on lighting costs. So what happens? Our electric bills increase to make up for the loss of revenues needed to maintain the infrastructure. My bill is $37 for months that my usage is ZERO!

I used to be a big supporter of NU and CL&P's energy awareness and conservation programs, but now I think they are a sham. They could be saving much more facilitating the conversion to home geothermal systems with summer air conditioning savings of more than 60% and heating savings of more than 30%. Imagine the huge decrease in summer maximum demand loads if the air condition requirements of tens of thousands of homes were cut in half! BUT NO. They (or the powers that be) don't want that to happen.(Maximum demand loads are the yardstick that measures the cost we have to pay for electricity for the entire year, including most of the years when cost should be greatly reduced.)

WHY? What is the secret agenda that is not being discussed? Why aren't the needs of the citizens foremost in the minds of the legislators and those managing these funds?

I feel we are being betrayed by our elected officials and those hey have put in charge to manage these programs.

Give me a phone number to call and I will join that board tomorrow with hundred of likeminded citizens.
lower please

Meriden, CT

#36 Jul 27, 2008
I just wanna produce my own electricity and have them buy back for cash-not credits-my extra....
Missy

Farmington, CT

#37 Jul 27, 2008
If more customers paid their bill, our rates would be lower. How do you think NU pays for all the customers with 'no babies daddies' out there? WE do..the Ratepayers, and people who work..so who's calling the DPUC to have them demand payment from Everyone...not just those that work for a living? Its time we do something! Lower the rates NU!
Mario

Middletown, CT

#38 Jul 27, 2008
CL&P's management of the conservation fund has been outstanding. Studies conducted by different parties have shown that the fund is managed very well. Overhead was not deemed to be "high".

Like I said, it is easy to blame the utility for all the problems, but difficult to seek out the solution. CL&P manages the programs that are approved by an independent body. So it simply isn't fair to blame CL&P.

Laughing at You

Rocky Hill, CT

#39 Aug 1, 2008
the Badger wrote:
I am with you 101%.
I think they are shifting this way because they are afraid of competition. Once another supplier can carve a niche around here their days will be numbered. Agree?
<quoted text>
Yet another cluless person, it is sooooo painful! You're thinking like the legislators who decided that it was a fabulous idea to change the way the electric company worked. Did you notice that the rates started going up significantly once it happened? The company does not have control over generating the power anymore, they have to rely on outside companies to supply it. Now we hear that the legislators think it may not have been a good idea - DUH!!!

Competition???? Who do you think would want to come to Connecticut and put up lines and poles (think billions of $'s)??? Monopoly - of course it is (see previous sentence).

Instead of whining, let's see if we can get some company in here to set up shop. This isn't like Shaw's and Stop & Shop competing for customers!
victor

Farmington, CT

#40 Aug 4, 2008
whats with his smug face and cigar?
Michelle Duquette

United States

#41 Aug 7, 2008
I was researching faulty meters, due to my monthly electric bills closing in on the $300 mark. I am a single mom and have made tons of changes to conserve electricity at my home. I have also personally interviewed several of my colleagues who have pools, hot tubs, more people living in their homes, stay-at-home spouses, etc. who are paying approximately 1/2 of what I pay in electricity. I no longer dry my clothes in the dryer; I use the clothesline; there has been no one in the house furing the day for 90% or more of the month, and I have been using the grill to cook, washing the dishes by hand vs. dishwasher, cut laundry down to a 1/4 of what I was doing and no matter how many of these things that I do, my electric bill still hovers close to the $300 mark...this past bill was $252.00. My home is of the same size or smaller than the people that I've informally polled, and common sense tells me that something is amiss!

Your story was exciting to me, because I work at the Rocky Hill Marriott and I know John "Johnny" Magwood, because he has been living at my hotel while looking for a permanent home. He is one of my favorite guest of all-time and a pleasure to know. I feel that there may be some hope that CL&P/NU may actually listen to me with the new "customer service initiatives" that Mr. Magwood is implementing.

In a economy where Americans are having to choose between things like groceries, gas or paying their mortgages, there is no room for $250+/month electric bills!
Another Kim

South Dennis, MA

#42 Aug 7, 2008
Michelle Duquette wrote:
I was researching faulty meters, due to my monthly electric bills closing in on the $300 mark. I am a single mom and have made tons of changes to conserve electricity at my home. I have also personally interviewed several of my colleagues who have pools, hot tubs, more people living in their homes, stay-at-home spouses, etc. who are paying approximately 1/2 of what I pay in electricity. I no longer dry my clothes in the dryer; I use the clothesline; there has been no one in the house furing the day for 90% or more of the month, and I have been using the grill to cook, washing the dishes by hand vs. dishwasher, cut laundry down to a 1/4 of what I was doing and no matter how many of these things that I do, my electric bill still hovers close to the $300 mark...this past bill was $252.00. My home is of the same size or smaller than the people that I've informally polled, and common sense tells me that something is amiss!
Your story was exciting to me, because I work at the Rocky Hill Marriott and I know John "Johnny" Magwood, because he has been living at my hotel while looking for a permanent home. He is one of my favorite guest of all-time and a pleasure to know. I feel that there may be some hope that CL&P/NU may actually listen to me with the new "customer service initiatives" that Mr. Magwood is implementing.
In a economy where Americans are having to choose between things like groceries, gas or paying their mortgages, there is no room for $250+/month electric bills!
I know what you mean! I wash my clothes and my kids in the lake. I work two jobs to make ends meet because my first job doesn't pay enough and I won't leave because I like my life to be limited both educationally and financially. I don't use any lights at night, no air conditioning and I wear a shotty sun dress to stay cool and my electric bill hovers around $300 too. Go Figure?
Mrs Common Sense

Morris, CT

#43 Aug 7, 2008
How much more will ratepayers need to pay to help cover the increased costs associated with getting the better service?

That was sarcasm up there, folks. ;)

What we really need to be asking is why a company whose sole purpose is to provide service seems to have to reinvent the wheel every 6 months and struggles to prove that they can, while our state DPUC continues to allow them to raise our rates.
Another Kim

South Dennis, MA

#44 Aug 8, 2008
Now I have to pay $364 a month on the budget plan...which means that I have to pay for oil in the summer when I'm not even using it. Ya know, I'm such a loser, my job doesn't pay me enough money; and now the X hasn't sent me a check in months. With the price of everything going up, I don't know how I'm going to make it!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Berlin Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Blizzard-stricken East digs out amid forecast 2... Mar 26 geneliadsouza07 16
News Montachusett Public Health Network offers Narca... (Aug '14) Mar 23 The Inquirer 4
News City Welcomes the New Senior Center Mar 17 BLD 1
Lawsuit Filed against Grocery Store, Employees Mar 5 RCS 1
News Locals to pitch business plans in MWCC contest ... Feb '15 Jtn 1
where is Jennifer Wade (Camas)at these days? Feb '15 Jessica 3
News Roofing contractor specializes in replacing roo... Feb '15 calebhart54 1
More from around the web

Berlin People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]