flitterbit wrote:
> Nancy Young wrote:
>> flitterbit wrote:

>>> If you're referring to the one I'm thinking of, the electric company
>>> put some kind of current-restricting device on his meter because he
>>> was apparently about $1,000 in arrears in paying his electrical
>>> bill. The article I read alleges that no one at the utility
>>> explained to him how this works, with the result that he continued
>>> to use electricity as he always had, reached the limit, and the
>>> whole works shut down, leaving him without heat. The poor guy was
>>> found wearing multiple layers of
>>> clothing and covered in as many blankets as he owned, but it wasn't
>>> enough.
>>
>> That was in Michigan. Poor guy. That was a sad story.

> Sad indeed, especially since it seems there was no one in this poor
> man's life to watch out for him or take charge of his affairs.

I'm not clear if he didn't have the money or just didn't have the
wherewithall to pay his bills. Regardless, I think they have
learned their lesson and will have to take steps to make sure
the person understands they need to lower their use with this
device installed.

Luckily most of us can put our finances on auto pilot these
days, assuming you have the money, you can arrange to have
your bills paid automatically. If you don't have the money, what's
the answer. I don't know. Where I live you can apply for assistance
with your utilities.

> While I understand utility companies' need to be paid, it strikes me
> as irresponsible that the power company didn't educate this guy about
> the device they were installing. Whether or not they'll be deemed
> negligent remains to be seen.

Yeah, let's see his relatives pop up looking for a payday out of
this. Then we can find out why no one looked in on him during
this nasty cold snap. He was 92, for pete's sake.

You could see the neighbors felt awful about it.

nancy