Please pay attention to the most important statement in this article:
"The program would be voluntary, he said, but the company would seek permission from the PUCO to charge its customers for money it will lose under the energy-efficiency proposals, he said."
FirstEnergy wants permission to charge its customers for energy they [we - the customer] will not be using if we choose to implement energy-saving measures.
I don't know about anyone else, but I do not want to pay for something I am not using. It's hard enough to pay for what I am using.
FirstEnergy customers, once again, need to stand up, make as much noise as possible - and ensure they do not get away with this.
November 21, 2009 at 9:02 p.m.
David re your last post - I have heard you screaming. And I agree with you. I have no intentions of voting for Issue 3. Yet, as with most issues, many voters do not understand all that is involved. They think: Gambling in Ohio - ok, I'm for it. They hear: Money coming to the Valley - and say, great! This is what I am hearing around the area. But I fear they are being misled about the second part, yet I do not know if I am correct in my fear - this is the reason for my posts. I am not criticizing your efforts but merely asking you to try to clarify this important point and I also believe the Vindicator should be doing all that it can to investigate the facts of this issue and inform its readers. While Betram has a point with this editorial, which is basically "Sh*t or get off the pot" regarding gambling in Ohio - that's really not the point behind being for or against Issue 3. I believe people will vote for Issue 3 because they want gambling and later will be sorry because only THEN will they realize we have Once Again been left behind.
October 19, 2009 at 9:36 a.m.
I don't know anyone in public financing - that's why I was asking for someone to definitively answer this question. I think it is an extremely important question because many people feel that if we are not getting the direct and indirect income from a local casino at least we will be getting additional money into the area - but I would like to know if this is truly the case or not. I think everyone needs to know if this is the case or not. And, David, as you have been a vocal opponent of Issue 3 I think you need to get the answer for the voters and, if we are not going to get additional income, scream it from the rooftops.
October 18, 2009 at 9:58 p.m.
Can someone, preferably someone who truly knows what they are talking about, answer me: Is the money being promised to come into the Valley new money, additional money - money we are not receiving now OR will it simply replace the funding source for money we are already receiving (and, therefore, bring no additional new money into the Valley) - leaving us right where we are today?
October 18, 2009 at 8:04 p.m.
uhm, hello, the Mahoning Plaza is not on Meridian Road.
October 14, 2009 at 6:03 p.m.
Chico I wasn't calling you out for posting twice - I just would like to know who you are referring to and what they are doing. I, and I'm sure others, would like to know who is looking out for the consumers. So - can you let us know who they may be? Thanks.
October 7, 2009 at 3:41 p.m.
Chico54: You've posted twice now that the Dems are against this & are fighting it. Which Democrats and, besides Kucinich, what exactly are they doing to fight it?
October 7, 2009 at 2:28 p.m.
I'm not a math genius - but my figures indicate the following: the article states they are delivering 3.75 million bulbs and charging .60 monthly for 36 months for 2 bulbs or .30 monthly for 36 months per bulb. .30 x 36 = $10.80. 3.75 million x $10.80 = $40,500,000. The article also states the bulbs can be purchased by consumers for $9 per pair (or $4.50 each). Since I'm sure First Energy is not going into Home Depot and buying bulbs 2 at a time, let's use half that price, or $2.25 per bulb (and I'm also sure they are paying even less than that per bulb). $2.25 x 3.75 million = $8,437,500. So, $40,500,000 (in fees from customers) less $8,437,500 (in cost of bulbs) = $32,062,500 for delivery and lost income. [I love the part where they are permitted to recoup the amount they would have been paid if we didn't use their energy-saving bulbs! We have to pay for electricity we're not using!]I don't know about anyone else - but I would gladly deliver their bulbs for half of $32 million!
October 7, 2009 at 10:40 a.m.
I'm a little confused, and I'm not an expert, but - if a company sends you something that you didn't order and don't want isn't that considered a gift? And aren't there laws that state you do not have to pay for something you didn't order and don't want?
October 7, 2009 at 7:47 a.m.
To see a perfect example of what helps to keep our image down, you need to look no farther than Mr. deSouza's column printed the same day as this article.
February 8, 2009 at 3:21 p.m.