CenterPoint Energy on Mon­day de­fend­ed its re­quest to boost the fixed charge for ­de­liv­er­ing nat­u­ral gas, say­ing it will be fair­er to Minnesota resi­den­tial cus­tom­ers.

The state's larg­est nat­u­ral gas u­til­i­ty has faced crit­i­cism from state ag­en­cies and AARP-Minnesota for pro­pos­ing an 87 percent in­crease in the month­ly bas­ic charge. Un­der CenterPoint's plan, a separate us­age-based rate would drop, re­sul­ting in an over­all in­crease of 5 percent.

The bas­ic charge, which CenterPoint wants to in­crease from $8 to $15 per month, is paid re­gard­less of how much nat­u­ral gas a ­cus­tom­er uses. The pro­posed change is part of CenterPoint's re­quest for a $44 mil­lion rate hike pend­ing be­fore the state Public Utili­ties Commission.

Most of the com­pany's 823,000 Minnesota cus­tom­ers have been pay­ing an across-the-board in­ter­im 4.9 percent hike since Oct. 1. The in­crease, like the re­quest­ed per­ma­nent rate hike, is for de­liv­er­ing gas. Utili­ties don't make a prof­it on nat­u­ral gas, and pass on price chan­ges to cus­tom­ers.

In its defense of the pro­posed 87 percent basic-charge in­crease, CenterPoint said cus­tom­ers who use lots of gas are, in effect, subsidizing the cost of delivering gas to low-use cus­tom­ers. That's because de­liv­er­ing gas is largely a fixed cost no mat­ter how much en­er­gy a cus­tom­er uses, the com­pany said.

"Low-us­age cus­tom­ers are not be­ing harmed," Burl Drews, CenterPoint man­ag­er of rates and reg­u­la­to­ry re­search, said in writ­ten tes­ti­mo­ny about the pro­posed change. "They are mere­ly be­ing charged a price clos­er to their ac­tu­al cost."

Low-use cus­tom­ers po­ten­tial­ly af­fect­ed in­clude win­ter-trav­el­ing snow­birds whose fur­naces are turned down or off, a­part­ment dwell­ers who use little gas, peo­ple who use nat­u­ral gas for things oth­er than heat and those who ag­gres­sive­ly con­serve en­er­gy. For a low-use cus­tom­er (554 therms a year), the change in the bas­ic charge would cost an ad­di­tion­al $31 an­nu­al­ly, CenterPoint said.

By con­trast, the u­til­i­ty said, a typi­cal cus­tom­er would face no in­crease and would see less fluc­tu­a­tion in month­ly charges. In sum­mer, when nat­u­ral gas use is low, the bill would be a few dol­lars high­er. Winter bills would end up a few dol­lars low­er.

In a sur­vey, "near­ly two-thirds of the resi­den­tial cus­tom­ers pre­fer a rate de­sign that low­ers their win­ter bills and de­creas­es the month-to-month bill vol­a­til­i­ty," Paul Gastineau, seni­or di­rec­tor of rates and reg­u­la­to­ry pol­icy for CenterPoint, said in writ­ten tes­ti­mo­ny.

CenterPoint filed the tes­ti­mo­ny with the PUC. An ad­min­is­tra­tive judge will re­view it, then hold a tri­al-like hear­ing in Jan­u­ar­y and is­sue find­ings in April.

Critics of CenterPoint have said the higher bas­ic charge would be a shock to rate­pay­ers and a dis­cour­age­ment to con­ser­va­tion. But CenterPoint dis­put­ed those claims, and point­ed out that thanks to fall­ing nat­u­ral gas prices, cus­tom­ers are pay­ing 60 percent less for the fuel than in 2008.

"This 60 percent re­duc­tion in the cost of gas is why it may be more dif­fi­cult for resi­den­tial cus­tom­ers to find cost-effective en­er­gy ef­fi­cien­cy projects," Drews said.

David Shaffer • 612-673-7090 Twitter: @ShafferStrib