You may have heard about the faux pas committed by the lawyer for Central Vermont Public Service this week. We were all over it her, pointing out the arrogance and insensitivity of this position.
By now they've issued their insincere apology, but the rest of the story, as Paul Harvey would say, is still out there.
First off, here are the objectionable questions:
5. Mr. Howat refers to several health and safety benefits of fewer disconnections, health consequences of disconnections, expenditure choices between medial care and utility bills, child health impacts and advantages of energy assistance programs.
The World Health Organization has stated: “Tobacco and poverty are inextricably linked. Many studies have shown that in the poorest households in some low-income countries as much as 10% of total household expenditure is on tobacco. This means that these families have less money to spend on basic items such as food, education and health care. In addition to its direct health effects, tobacco leads to malnutrition, increased health care costs and premature death. It also contributes to a higher illiteracy rate, since money that could have been used for education is spent on tobacco instead. Tobacco's role in exacerbating poverty has been largely ignored by researchers in both fields.” http://www.who.int/tobacco/health_priority/en/index.html
A study by the Center for Disease Control reported that smoking by adults living below the poverty level (185% of federal poverty level) was higher than those at or above the level (32.9% v. 22.2%), and that low-income families with an adult smoker purchased approximately 10 packs of cigarettes a week.
At $5.00 a pack, 10 packs a week equals $200 per month.
(a) Does Mr. Howatt believe an energy assistance program, as proposed, as opposed to a smoking reduction program, would have more than or fewer than the benefits he discusses. Why?
(b) (i) Does Mr. Howatt believe an energy assistance program would provide more discretionary income for a participant?
Response: No. In instances where household expenses exceed income, reduced electric bills lower the monthly income-expense deficit and increase the likelihood that the participant could purchase necessities.
(ii) If so, wouldn’t a participant that smokes be likely to use some or all of the energy cost savings to purchase cigarettes? (iii) If yes, then doesn’t that reduce the societal benefits of an energy assistance program? (iv) If no, please explain the basis for that conclusion. Docket No. 7535 AARP Response to CVPS Third Set of Information Requests June 23, 2010 Page 5
(c) Would $200 per month extra income to a low income family assist such family in paying for energy bills, food, etc? If no, please explain.
Response: Yes.
(d) Since smoking is a lifestyle choice, rather than a necessity, should an energy assistance program exclude applicants that choose to smoke? (i) If not, why not? (ii) Please explain why electric ratepayers should fund or subsidize a program for low income adults who smoke, when such adult is choosing to smoke rather than paying an energy bill?
(f) From a total societal benefit viewpoint, why shouldn’t a low income energy assistance program be linked to a non-smoking program?
(g) Please discuss AARP’s efforts in Vermont to reduce smoking by the elderly and low income people and families.
As I said, CV has apologized for asking these questions, but there are some unresolved isues.
First, did company management approve these questions before they were submitted?