I am quite capable of reading, thank you.
Do I have to spend the time reading every bit of correspondence that I receive to ensure that a third party does not decide on their own to take money out of my pocket and give it to something else? What if they chose to round up to the next $10, or $20? I will choose to donate to those charities I want. The responsibility should not fall on me to identify when an organization is going to steal from me to give to someone else.

yes, you do in todays highly complex, legal world, so time to keep up with that capability.

Its no different than paying attention to SCAM emails, etc. etc, and its !@#$%^&*() exhausting as well. .

1: They notified you that they were doing it, and you did not opt out. So... In essence, you gave them permission... (and yes, it should have been an "opt-in" program, but that point is moot right now...)

2: YOU get the tax deduction. At most, it will be $11.88 (for the year), which I'm sure will make a HUGE change in your tax status...

3: Even if they DID get the deduction, it would only be for monies collected thru the program, so it wouldn't effect their tax status one bit...

You gave your permission by not opting-out
That is how foundations work.
You get the deduction (don't spend the $1.50 all in one place)
They did ask your permission
I believe assistance for low-income customers was one of the purposes of the foundation.

Here it is in Seco's words.

Many years ago I had them put my billing on the budget plan and every month it is the same even number. That way the bill doesn’t fluctuate month to month and it balances once a year.

I lived many years in Europe. Its not uncommon in some cities for a 7 or 8 year old street urchin to pinch a dollar from your pocket. I do not understand why big corporations pinching a dollar from your pocket every month is any different. Its theft. Just because they tell you they are going to do it, does not make it right. Its not their dollar!

Do the "street urchins" tell you they're going to "pinch a dollar" and give you the option to "opt-out" of having said dollar pinched?

Water bill round up
 

Check your water bill
District rounds up the gallons used. Say you used 3600 irrigation gallons,
Your amount paid will be that of 4000 gallons.
0 to 7000 gallons is $2.38/1000
7001 to 14000 gallons is $3.99
14001 and up is $5.52/1000
If you use 15600 gallons you bill will be 16 x $5.52 = $88.32

Yes....but what you may or may not not realize is SECO also gets to deduct this amount on THEIR taxes. I know nine dollars for an individual account doesn't amount to a lot but just think how many hundreds of thousands of accounts SECO has, and are getting the tax benefit of all those charitable contributions. :$::$::$::$:

Not on my water bill. ( $15.90 / 6,570 ) * 1,000 = $2.42 per 1,000 gal, just as it says at the bottom of my bill.

Care to provide some actual numbers from your bill?

I don't think the IRS works that way.

AND EVEN IF IT DID, WHAT DO I CARE as long as I get to deduct my charitable giving (all $6 of it) and I feel it was used for a good purpose?

Not true on my bill.

I see it a little differently. "Opting in" would be you giving permission. But, in this case, SECO has decided to take your money without permission, and giving you the right to keep your money by "opting out". Apples and oranges.

If they asked if we wanted to opt in would say ok but do not like the fact that we had to take action to opt out. We direct charity as we see fit not as Seco sees fit.

This is just about the same as a thread a while back regarding restaurants rounding your bill up and not providing change. Fortunately we have the ability to opt out with SECO.

OMG! This could be up to 99 cents in some months.

Again for the umpteenth time, it is NOT about the amount of money

My mother is 90 and blind so she can't read bills and just has the money taken out of the bank.
She can hear on the bank phone how much SECO took out just to make sure it's not some off the wall deduction.

So now SECO is discriminating against disabled people who can't see statements and yet another reason to make it opt in.

The amount may not be off the wall but how does she know it is correct? How does she know there aren't additional charges or if she is receiving any refunds that she is owed?

It seems someone is doing her a disservice if they just allow her bills to automatically be paid without confirming the accuracy of the bill. Perhaps the person who should be checking the accuracy of her bills *before* they are paid should have alerted her to this as well.

There is something called a principle.

Correct. Stealing is stealing, regardless of the amount.

Actually, the worst place for these pickpockets is in St. Peters Square in Rome. And the local official have posted everywhere to beware of these young pickpockets … So yes, i was warned but went anyway, does that make it right? I could have opted out of the visit!

What SECO is doing is theft. They have no right to declare that they will keep MY money if I fail to respond to their notice.

What is to stop any person or business from sending you an email that they are going to take YOUR money for any amount unless you “opt out”?

If you believe what SECO is doing is theft and that they have no right to do that, our legal system is there to help you. Please let us know how your lawsuit goes.

What is to stop any business from doing the same? Nothing, it happens all the time. Xfinity rates, credit card fees, software licenses.... All come with a disclaimer that the cost will increase unless you opt out by a certain time.

SECO is not getting any of your money, the 501(c)(3) is. The only reason they have any of your extra pennies is you accepted their terms and allowed them to. The only reason they will get any more pennies is because your time is spent here complaining about the donation rather than going through the simple steps to opt-out...the same steps you could have taken in the 120 days before Jan. 1, 2023.

Respectfully, I usually agree with your posts, but not in this case. What SECO is doing is theft. Plain and simple. It is not the same thing as companies warning customers of a future rate increase. We both know that suing SECO is not practical. Customers should not be required to do anything to prevent SECO from taking their money.

To me, theft happens without knowledge, without warning, without recourse, and without benefit to the victims. None of those are true in this case. The program was announced well ahead of time, there was a way to opt-out then, there is a way to opt-out now, and there is a tax benefit to making the donation (yes, a tiny benefit, but proportional to the very small amount being donated).

Yes, we usually do agree but apparently not this time.... and that's okay.

Customers should be required to manage their accounts. And, there are those of us that like the opt out option and hate the opt in option. Just because some don't like one option doesn't mean it's wrong, only that there is a different opinion. Making up the definition of stealing or theft to fit one's opinion seems to me to be taking a superior position and knowledge over those that disagree.

I would want them to send change donated back and sent to your charity of your choice.

Theft is taking someone's property without their permission. I didn't make up the definition. If I tell you that I am going to take your golf cart unless you send me a letter, is that okay with you? I think the police would call it theft.

What benefit?

Let's say they collect $1,000,000 in those extra fees. That now counts as income, right?

So, if they give all that money to charity, it's like it never happened. Money in = Money out. A net "wash"...

But they let YOU deduct that charitable contribution, (per what was written on the announcement letters). So basically, they are nothing but a "pass thru" account for the charitable contributions...

While I agree with you on that point (you should opt-in rather than have to opt-out), those who are saying SECO benefits are just plain wrong...

So I guess this is now the "get your knickers in a twist" topic du jour?

I was just at SECO's district 2 (south of 466a) meeting.

The CEO was proud of the opt out program and called it a success.

Of course it was a success, because if you need to opt out, you will get more participation than if you need to opt in. Stealing is profitable.

How are they "profiting" on this when the money is donated to cahrity?

Please don't be such a grump. This may cost you less than $12 a year. If you cannot afford that, how are you leaving here in TVs?

The thing is, Bogie, we all pay taxes already and make independent donations that subsidize these programs.

I appreciate this act by Seco brought to our attention. I believe in charity, but not “sneaky” charity. I went over my notifications from Seco and could not find where I have been notified of their “rounding up” practices. I may have to take them off automatic billing and review in detail each bill if they come up with anything else.

SECO Energy is regulated by the Florida Public Services Commission (PSC), as a Public Utilities SECO inherently has more power over their customers than a regular Company and Florida Services Commission is supposed to keep SECO from abusing that power. SECO says they will contribute some of the funds they collect for their Pennies from Heaven Rounding Up Scheme, to assorted Charities but I would wager the lions share goes into SECO’s account to make up for business losses they suffer; from people who have not paid their Electric Bill. Legitimate Charities ask for Donations, they do not have the power to force contributions as SECO has assumed. SECO enrolls all their customers to contribute, and then offer a path to unenroll. I would bet 90% of their customers do not even relize they are contributing. Some of the worse frauds committed each year are related to Charities and Rounding Up schemes.
The Florida Public Services Commission should force SECO to return 100% of their ill-gotten funds to the Customers they took them from. Then and only then SECO might be permitted to ask their customers to contribute for their “Charity”, but they should have to give detailed accounting of where every penny the “Charity” takes in. If 90% of “Charity” Contributions are earmarked to go to SECO, they must inform their Customers.
SECO has abused the Public Utility position they enjoy. The Florida Public Services Commission has the power to fine SECO for their transgressions. A through investigation needs to be conducted to see where these ill-gotten funds went, and SECO should be forced to make restitution to all their customers. A good place to start the questioning is: Do any Politicians or regulators benefit from SECO’s “Charity”?

I called them today, and they ARE returning the money. It wasn't much, but it is the principle! They have restored my faith in them. This “opt out” scheme is quite unpopular and other companies have tried - it comes across as sneaky and enforced. They are in no position to dictate where and how one plans to spend their charitable contributions. I’m sorry they tried - they lost a bit of their good name.