PGW BALLOT QUESTION A BAD IDEA

WE ALL KNOW what the road to hell is paved with.

City Councilwoman Jannie Blackwell would like to add a few more bricks to that road with a proposal that would put a question on the ballot to ask voters whether the Public Utility Commission should deny PGW's recent rate-hike request.

Blackwell's motives may be well-intentioned -she says she's concerned about people who cannot afford to pay more for their gas bills - but they show a fundamental lack of understanding of PGW, and a fundamental lack of concern about those who may not be the poorerst among us but who still struggle to make ends meet.

At issue is a rate increase of $100 million that PGW filed for in December that would mean a hike of about $150 per year for the average customer. PGW says that it needs this money to cover rising costs of delivering gas.

Blackwell wants voters to urge the PUC to deny the increase. She cited the devastating fires that have beset the city this winter, in homes where the primary heat source had been cut off, where alternate heating methods were being used and where there were no smoke alarms. That's the well-intentioned part.

Why could this question put us on a shorter road to hell? Well, for one, PGW is owned by the city. Asking the state to deny a rate request for a city utility is confusing at best, especially without understanding the impact of that decision.

One impact is that PGW, which has spent the last few years on a long crawl out of years of mismanagement, has tightened up its operations and brought stability to the company. If its rate request is denied outright, the company must cut safety or services in order to keep operating. We see a quick trip back to fiscal chaos.

For another, PGW will have to pass its costs onto its whole customer base. That means an even higher rate for the many hardworking customers who already pay about $150 a year to cover the cost of PGW's low-income programs that gives the poorest reduced rates. When this was pointed out to her, Blackwell exploded and claimed that such reminders - that we all share the costs of PGW's social programs - are unfair and immoral.

We strongly disagree. That we all help underwrite PGW's poorest customers is a reality, and denying it does nothing to solve the problems of a municipal utility that must serve a large population in poverty.

Lance Haver, head of the Mayor's Office of Consumer Affairs, testified against the ballot measure in Council yesterday, and suggested that a better referendum question would be to ask the PUC to spread the universal service cost over the state, rather than forcing Philadelphians to pay a disproportionate share of the costs.

We also think that a better question would be to ask voters whether the state should pony up more money for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) to ease the burden. The state has a woeful track record, especially compared to other states.

The PGW problem needs to be solved. An empty gesture like this ballot question - which, while voted out of committee, could likely happen only after the PUC rules on PGW's rate request anyway - is not the solution, and can actually contribute to the problem.

The first of PUC's public hearings on the rate increases is Monday, 6 p.m., at Dorothy Emanuel Recreation Center, 8501 Provident St., Cedarbrook.

That's the right venue for people to voice their concerns, not in a ballot question that does nothing to explain, or solve, the problem. *