REJECT ALLIANT'S 18.1 % RATE INCREASE
Alliant Energy doesn’t need a rate increase—it needs much better management! Alliant customers should not be forced to pay 4 1/2 cents more per kilowatt hour than Iowa Power and Light customers pay!! Alliant customers are paid 2% interest on Certificates of Deposit (CDs) and Alliant wants the Iowa Utilities Board to approve over 10% return for Alliant. Don't they know times are tough??
This posting serves as evidence and public input in protest of the incredible 18.1 % rate increase now sought by Alliant Energy. Give Alliant what it wants and the chart below shows Alliant will have raised rates a total of 47% from 2003 to 2010. Iowalive sends this protest on behalf of Iowalive net workers and other Iowa citizens as well. The Alliant rate increase must be rejected, for the following reasons!!
Iowalive can find no evidence that Alliant Energy has shown any interest, or made any meaningful plans or efforts, for achieving rate reduction. To achieve rate reduction, Alliant must first stop rate increases. No one is in charge of stopping rate increases, much less rate reduction at Alliant! It is not on Alliant’s agenda--so it doesn’t matter and it doesn’t happen. Alliant’s agenda is only to increase rates. This is unacceptable.
The Iowa Utilities Board has been asked to cite any rate reduction plans or efforts they have asked for and received from Alliant—and to send them to the Consumer Advocate and email them to Iowalive as well. Alliant asks customers to use power more efficiently, which is good. Why won’t Alliant place similar emphasis on generating and distributing power more efficiently and lowering rates? Why won’t Alliant make much better use of the money it has, such as that received from selling transmission lines, rather than continually asking for more.
The following chart shows Alliant's average annual operating efficiency for 7 years. Rates are shown for 8 years. Alliant was given an 11½ % rate increase in 2004, followed by a decrease and two automatic increases—and its operating efficiency fell as a result. The efficiency will continue to fall if the proposed rate increase is approved. The efficiency numbers were derived with the same methods used to derive the numbers below the chart, showing the efficiency of Governor Vilsack’s office etc. Governor Vilsack challenged the numbers until his performance improvement specialists told him they were valid—and that he had no comparable numbers at all. In addition, the specialists contacted net workers to learn how the numbers were derived—and were very satisfied.
THE MORE MONEY ALLIANT ENERGY GETS, THE WORSE IT BECOMES
Anyone claiming to have better numbers is asked to provide them for evaluation and comparison.
THIS GREEDY, UNJUSTIFIED RATE INCREASE MUST BE REJECTED!! ALLIANT OFFICIALS SHOULD MAKE MUCH BETTER USE OF THE MONEY THEY HAVE, RATHER THAN CONTINUALLY ASKING FOR MORE.
OPERATING EFFICIENCY NUMBERS GOV. VILSACK CHALLENGED & ACCEPTED
|
|
|
Actual |
|
Estimated |
|
ESTIMATED |
|
|
|
FY 1998 |
|
FY 1999 |
|
FY 2000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average DOE (Details Later) |
|
21% |
|
20% |
|
18% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average DOT (Details Later) |
|
42% |
|
42% |
|
40% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average Admin. & Regulation |
|
36% |
|
39% |
|
35% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Admin. & Regulation Details |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Auditor of State |
|
53% |
|
56% |
|
54% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ethics and Campaign Disclosure |
|
13% |
|
14% |
|
19% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commerce--Avg. |
|
38% |
|
37% |
|
41% |
|
Commerce-administration |
|
35% |
|
32% |
|
34% |
|
Alcoholic Beverages |
|
34% |
|
31% |
|
30% |
|
Banking Division |
|
44% |
|
43% |
|
46% |
|
Credit Union Division |
|
42% |
|
41% |
|
39% |
|
Insurance Division |
|
36% |
|
31% |
|
28% |
|
Professional Licensing |
|
42% |
|
41% |
|
44% |
|
Utilities Division |
|
42% |
|
41% |
|
44% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legislative Branch |
|
44% |
|
44% |
|
43% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
General Services |
|
74% |
|
77% |
|
74% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Governor--Avg. |
|
21% |
|
20% |
|
19% |
|
Governor's Office, Iowa |
|
19% |
|
20% |
|
18% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Inspections & Appeals--Avg. |
|
13% |
|
12% |
|
11% |
|
Inspections And Appeals |
|
14% |
|
13% |
|
11% |
|
Racing Commission |
|
11% |
|
11% |
|
11% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Management |
|
39% |
|
38% |
|
34% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Personnel |
|
35% |
|
34% |
|
35% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenue and Finance |
|
29% |
|
28% |
|
26% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Secretary of State |
|
44% |
|
44% |
|
33% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
State-Federal Relations |
|
24% |
|
23% |
|
21% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Treasurer of State |
|
74% |
|
78% |
|
78% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average Admin. & Regulation |
|
36% |
|
39% |
|
35% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NOTE: Anyone claiming to have better numbers should bring them forward for comparison and evaluation. |
||||||