Dear Editor:
I couldn't help but read with amusement a recent letter that chastised legislators for not rubber stamping legislation pushed by Ameren to make it easier to raise our electric rates. This citizen was bemoaning the fact that Ameren couldn't charge customers more for "upgraded infrastructure," which I can only imagine is the poll-tested phrase ratepayers find least objectionable. If Ameren is planning two rate decreases, then this individual is the only one privy to this info.
The truth is that Ameren has all the money they need to make any infrastructure upgrades. In fact they have raised rates by 43 percent over the last six years and were even caught last year earning $80 million more than the Public Service Commission had authorized.
Instead of reinvesting those resources into "upgraded infrastructure," Ameren made a business decision to return much of it to shareholders. As a monopoly they don't need to worry about customer defections. In the world of monopoly utilities the customer might not always be right, but the shareholders certainly are.
There is absolutely nothing stopping Ameren from making any prudent infrastructure upgrades right now through the traditional rate-making process. That process however is annoying to utilities because it balances the need for these monopolies to make a healthy profit with the needs of consumers. Thus they have chosen to try and persuade our elected representatives to pass special-interest legislation that passes these costs onto ratepayers through surcharges and other accounting gimmicks.
To make matters worse, Ameren just reported last month it had its most reliable service year ever. Something isn't adding up. Ameren is making more money than it is supposed to and it had its most reliable year ever. I hope readers don't forget that Ameren is a for-profit monopoly utility company whose job it is to make money for its shareholders and provide safe and reliable service to its customers. Even by their own account, Ameren did both last year, and without the assistance of special-interest legislation.