Who is to blame for the upcoming electric rate increase?

As most people now know, starting in January of 2007, electric rates in this area will increase by 40 percent. In 1997, Illinois passed deregulation legislation that was supposed to allow consumers to choose their power supplier similar to the way they choose their long distance phone supplier.

One company would own the distribution system and others would own the generation system or power plants. The distribution companies would contract rates from the generation companies and pass those to the consumer. The consumer would then have the choice to accept that package or shop elsewhere for a different supplier and pay separate bills to the supplying company and the distribution company.

Prior to deregulation, utilities owned their power plants and delivered energy to customers at a regulated price. As part of the move to free markets, regulators capped electric rates for several years and required utilities to transfer or sell their plants.

The generation companies have been under contract with the distribution companies to provide power until the first of 2007, when the rate freeze expires. Rates after the first of the year were set by this reverse auction we have heard so much about. The distribution companies are now under contract to purchase electricity at this rate. Extending the rate freeze on the distribution companies will force them to charge less than what they have to pay. This would be a disaster waiting to happen.

While Ameren as a whole has been profitable, it is broken up into several subsidiaries that must act as separate companies. A profitable subsidiary cannot bail out a losing one. Doing so would be unfair to shareholders of the profitable company who did not invest in the other.

While we write our checks to Ameren, the generation companies that took part in the reverse auction are not known, or at least very hard to find. As the end consumer, we do not know where our product is originating. And it is these generating companies that are actually setting the price.

Maybe it is the State to blame for the impending rate increase. Twenty-three states passed electricity deregulation in the mid 1990’s. The California energy crisis of 2000 and 2001, and the Northeastern blackout in August of 2003, has left some states nervous. Since then, six states have either delayed or suspended the restructuring.

Illinois deregulation won’t allow distribution companies to produce their own electricity. The legislature has kept prices artificially low for close to a decade. They have set so many regulations to deregulation it is hard to regulate. Either repeal deregulation like many other states have or get out of the way of free market.

Time to change the batteries

Benjamin Franklin wrote An Economic Project in 1784 at the age of 78. Franklin was known for staying up till the wee hours of the morning and sleeping till midday. He realized he lost 6 hours of daylight to sleep, yet burned his lamp for six hours before falling asleep. He calculated how much wax the City of Paris (where he lived in 1784) burned during the summer months and realized the immense cost to Parisians.

Hoping to keep everyone awake during daylight hours, Franklin made four proposals:
1. A tax is laid on every window built with shutters to keep out the light of the sun.
2. Candles rationed to one pound per family per week.
3. Guards posted to stop the passage of all coaches, etc. upon the streets after sunset except those of physicians, surgeons and midwives.
4. Every morning as soon as the sun shall rise, church bells and, if necessary, cannon shall inform the citizenry of the advent of light.

Franklin’s proposals were meant to be in humor, but in the early 1900’s Franklin’s writings sparked the ideas of Daylight Saving Time. May 21, 1916, Britain began its version.

Standard time in time zones was instituted in the U.S. and Canada by the railroads on November 18, 1883. Prior to that, time of day was a local matter. Standard time was made law with the Standard Time Act of 1918, enacted on March 19. Today, time laws are the responsibility of the Department of Transportation.

Daylight saving time was left to local legislation until 1966 when Congress passed the Uniform Time Act, which created Daylight Saving Time to begin on the last Sunday of April and to end on the last Sunday of October. 20 years later, the start of DST was moved to the first Sunday in April.

As in Franklin’s writings, energy savings are the biggest reason for Daylight Saving Time. And is the principle reasoning in the changes made to it over the years. The clocks remained an hour ahead for most of World War II. And in during the oil embargo of the 1970’s, the US stayed on DST for 15 months. Moving the start date in 1986 saves the US 300,000 barrels of oil per year.

Beginning in 2007, DST will begin on the second Sunday of March and end the first Sunday of November. The Secretary of Energy will report the impact of this change to Congress. And Congress will decide if we should go back to the 2005 time schedule.

Daylight Saving Time (not Daylight SavingS Time) is also the traditional time to change the batteries in your smoke detectors. And that is real point I want to make in this column. And don’t forget your carbon monoxide detectors as well.

I learned first hand last week the importance of a carbon monoxide detector. While I’m pretty diligent about the smoke detectors, I must admit I had lost track of the CO detector. Over the summer, it surfaced and a few weeks ago, I replaced the batteries and put it in the upstairs hallway.

Several hours after turning my furnace on for the first time, the CO alarm went off. I immediately thought of my children and how carbon monoxide may be deadly to someone their size long before an adult would even feel the effects.

We left the house and called the fire department. They confirmed elevated levels and stayed until they returned to normal. We shut the furnace down and had it checked out the next day.

The problem has been fixed and everything worked, as it should. The alarm alerted us before the levels were dangerous. The fire department responded and assured everything was safe. Now everything is back to normal and all is well. But things might have been different if I had not replaced the batteries in the carbon monoxide detector.

Bring back the bands!!

Back in the mid 1980’s, when I was just a lowly band geek we spent nearly every weekend throughout the fall at various parades and competitions. There was always a weekend in October reserved for the EIU homecoming parade.

Even twenty years ago, there was trouble with rowdy spectators harassing the bands. We had to cover the bells of the tubas to keep beer cans out of them. And the flag girls lined up along the sides of the formation and performed sidespins along the route, pushing the crowd back to the curb where they belonged.

We were told what to expect and took measures to lessen the impact on our band. But the problems we encountered were relatively mild compared to some in recent years.

In 1996, a crowd of nearly 100 at the Pi Kappa Alpha house at 1110 Sixth Street harassed parade participants by shouting vulgarities, and grabbing people. Three outnumbered officers nearby could do little to control the crowd. Three members of the fraternity were found guilty of disturbing the peace and ordered to pay fines. The situation improved for the 1997 parade.

The most recent round of troubles climaxed in 2002 when members of many bands were pelted with beer cans, candy, lit cigarettes and insults. Children as young as 6th grade were propositioned by intoxicated parade spectators. These actions led to Newton Jr. High School band vow to not return. Several others declared not to come back until there have been several years without incidents to assure the safety of his students. This included Charleston’s high school and middle school bands.

2003 saw many changes to policies around the homecoming parade; the most noticeable being several dozen “blue shirt” volunteers to watch over the trouble areas. There was nothing but praise on how smooth the 2003 parade went. Praise was also given towards the 2004 parade. And there were no problems reported in 2005.

Now Mayor Inyart is taking steps to lure bands back to the parade. One suggestion is to make the parade a competition for the bands, offering a $3000 prize. Many bands state that it is not the rowdy behavior that has kept them away from the parade, but various competitions that conflict with the parade.

While scheduling conflicts may be the official reason for the absence of the bands, safety is still high on the minds of kids and their parents. There have been many suggestions to help make the parade safer, including changing the route. This has been proposed in the past and it has been decided the current route is the best.

"If it doesn't go up Seventh Street, around the Square and down Sixth Street, it isn't a parade," parade officials have stated. "The parade is about the campus, community and alumni and we want to keep it that way."

I agree, the route passes by the best of both the City and the College. By marching from Old Main to the square and back shows that EIU is united with the City. Besides, changing the route doesn’t address the problem, only moves it.

So whether its safety concerns or scheduling conflict, the number of bands at the EIU homecoming parade has been low compared to the past. A good number of bands in a parade can make the difference between a good parade and great one. Lets bring the bands back to Charleston and everyone please behave.

Solving Charleston’s roofing problems

Mid September, the City of Charleston worked to appease roofing contractors and homeowners who had complained of shoddy work being done within the City. The City’s original idea to regulate such activities was to require a permit for all roofing work, including constructing, reconstructing, altering, maintaining and repairing roofs.

The permit would require anyone, except for the homeowner, working on roofs to be licensed by the State of Illinois. There was also a $50 fee attached to the permit application.

As imaginable, this proposal met stiff opposition throughout the City. Many saw this as the City overstepping their bounds and placing undo burden on its citizens. The Mayor and Council tabled the ordinance and asked the City staff to come up with a more workable plan.

Scrutiny over the proposal continued over the next couple of weeks and before the first council meeting in October, Mayor Inyart dropped the proposal all together. The proposal was supposed to allow the City to police whether roofers were following state statutes. But in the end, it was decided it would put an undue burden on the City and its citizens.

I did some checking around to see how other cities handle similar roofing problems. Many cities do require some sort of permit for different levels of roof work. But most weren’t required unless structural work was being done. So the City of Charleston was not completely in left field studying the idea.

But the citizens informed the City, they were not in approval of the idea, and since the City works for the citizens, the measure was dropped. So now what does the City plan on doing about the original complaints of shoddy roof work being done within the City?

The problem seems to go beyond making sure roofers are State Licensed. Apparently, it doesn’t take much to become licensed by the state. And having a state license doesn’t guarantee good work. I hope by dropping the permit proposal, the City is not dropping the subject altogether. There must be some common ground to insure quality work that is not a burden to the citizens.

Replacing the fire chief – what a mess

Whether you are an elected official or a city employee, you have an obligation to make the decision that is in the best interest of the city, even if it is an unpopular choice. It is easy to stick your finger in the air and see which way the wind is blowing, and make your choice based on public opinion. But is the popular choice always the best choice? A good leader will make their decision on what is truly best, not on the winds.

This is what I wrote December 5, 2004 when the City of Charleston looked out of their ranks to hire a new police chief. The decision was very unpopular at the time, but seems to have worked out for the best for the City of Charleston.

When Mattoon made their decision to replace Fire Chief Bruce Grafton this week, they made the decision to only look for candidates from with the existing ranks of the fire department. By doing so, the City may be missing out on some extremely qualified candidates. I’m not saying that the candidates within the existing fire department are not qualified. They would actually have a leg up since they know the department and transition would likely be smoother with someone familiar with the force.

But how does the City know they are the best choice without opening the search to outside the community? The Council took the easy path to replacing the fire chief. The department could have run smoothly with an interim chief for weeks, or even months. Without widening the search, we will never know if the next Red Adair or Ray Downey could have been fire chief in Mattoon.

The other controversy surrounding the replacement of the fire chief is whether or not to give outgoing chief, Bruce Grafton a spike in his pension. As a taxpayer and fiscal conservative, I am all for not costing the taxpayers any more money than absolutely required. But this goes a lot deeper than that.

The so-called spike was negotiated into the firefighters contract many years ago as an incentive for firefighters to retire. At the time, the department was heavy in older firefighters and the City wanted to restructure the department with one of assorted age groups. The measure worked and now there is a diverse age range within the department. This configuration works best for the City as its good to have a mix of older, experienced firemen and younger, agile firefighters.

But the chief and assistant chief are not part of the bargaining unit. So the spike did not apply to them. But the City has extended the spike to all retiring chiefs and assistant chiefs for many, many years. The current council has approved the spike for previous retiring management.

And don’t look for this to be the end of pension spikes, as it is my understanding some management has the spike negotiated into their contract. The City needs to pass an ordinance prohibiting these spikes and keep everyone on an even playing field. To not extend the spike to Grafton reeks of the “Good ole boys club” the council claims it doesn’t adhere to.

Finally, I would like to thank Bruce Grafton for his service to the City of Mattoon. This is something that has seemed to be forgotten in this mess. Bruce served the City honorably for 32 years, 5 years as the head of the fore department. He has saved countless lives and put his own in danger for the citizen of Mattoon.

He was standing on the second floor of Walker’s Supermarket when the roof collapsed. As chief, he encouraged his men to continue their education in both firefighting and management. He was able to get the city hundreds of thousands of dollars in grants to better equip the department. And he always kept within his budget, often returning unused portions back to the City.

It is these things the City should remember Bruce Grafton for. Not this mess over his sudden retirement. I would like to see the council extend the same thanks to Mr. Grafton, on the record during council.