Chris King and Dan Delurey provide additional analysis for their recent paper, “Energy Efficiency and Demand Response: Twins, Siblings, or Cousins?” Fortnightly, March 2005.
Letters to the Editor
Second, Ferguson correctly states that my testimony showed that the company had incurred $448 million of distribution plant cost of removal for the years 1994 to 2003. He fails, however, to inform the reader that my testimony also showed that the company had charged its ratepayers $1.5 billion over and above the $448 million for distribution plant cost of removal. I seek to protect that $1.5 billion excess from a rate-base cleansing until the company actually spends the money on its intended purpose. Again, what’s wrong with that?— Michael J. Majoros Jr.