BLP: No surcharge

A surcharge recently enacted by the state to help pay for low-income residents’ utility bills won’t be coming to Grand Haven Board of Light & Power bills.
Alex Doty
Jul 26, 2013


The local municipal utility's board voted to opt out of the mandate.

Public Act 95 was signed into law July 1 by Gov. Rick Snyder, and requires a surcharge be placed on all electric bills as set by the Michigan Public Service Commission to fund a low-income home heating assistance program. The surcharge has a cap of $1 per meter per month.

Utilities are allowed the option to opt out of the program, but doing so places limits on when the utility can shut service off to its nonpaying customers.

“I am always uncomfortable when our Legislature implements measures that remove local control of our electric utility from our elected Board of Directors,” BLP General Manager Annette Allen said. “The Board of Light & Power established a Helping Hands program many years ago, which assists families in our local community who are in need and unable to pay their utility bills.”

Allen said the local utility funds its Helping Hands program by donating a portion of the money collected from its door tag disconnect notice program and through voluntary customer donations.

“Our local program is implemented through The Salvation Army, with 100 percent of the money being distributed to families in need in our community,” Allen said.

According to BLP officials, Public Act 95 doesn’t guarantee money collected will come back to the community. The law provides for surcharges to be directed to the region, and it is not clear what the region is for the Grand Haven area.

To read more of this story, see today’s print or e-edition of the Grand Haven Tribune.



This is a VERY good move by the BLP. In fact, it has prompted me to directly support the local Helping Hands program.


Awesome play BLP! The board is to be commended for their observations on surcharge redistribution, and keeping the funds local. Kudos


Here, here! Good move.


I concur with all of the comments to date, and wonder why other utilities haven't taken this commonsense approach. Were they pressured to redistribute income, or did they just want it to be easier for them to shut off service to non-paying customers (and we know the result if they shut off service to certain populations).


Post a Comment

Log in to your account to post comments here and on other stories, galleries and polls. Share your thoughts and reply to comments posted by others. Don't have an account on Create a new account today to get started.