The fact is that public utilities such as MG&E are regulated monopolies. If they charge more than a consumer wants to pay, too bad, there is no one else to buy that product and service from. Either pay their price of go without.
As a monopoly, the government guarantees a specific profit margin for MG&E so that if their costs rise enough, the PSC must allow rate hikes. Yes, as Janesvillean wrote, the only way a unionized company like that can avoid its rising pension obligations is to have some kind of legal intervention such as bankruptcy. But, a pension obligation is only as good as the company that funds it. The government will not allow MG&E to go bankrupt, but they could intervene with legislation relieving MG&E of some or even all of its pension obligations, but it won’t do that of course, so higher prices are inevitable.
In the private unregulated sector, such as GM, when they raise prices customers need not buy. In fact, with healthy competition in the market place, a company that raises its prices without considering what their customers will think or do usually go bankrupt in spite of Janesvillean’s assumptions of corporate arrogance. Consider the case of a common consumer item, the large screen T.V. How much were they 5 years ago? Last year? How about personal computers? There is lots of competition, no one controls those markets and the prices don’t rise, they fall. A lot.
Now let’s consider GM. They are losing lots of money with each car they sell. They can’t raise their prices to cover their costs (including some impressive pension obligations) as they can barely compete as things are with Toyota et.al. They must cut costs. But they are locked in to those costs with signed contracts, contracts they willing entered into but are now destroying them.
In the final analysis, nothing in life is certain, including pensions.
Why is it that some think that its only fair for everyone to chip in, either with higher taxes or higher prices, to guarantee a high rate of benefits to some, particularly when those benefits are much better than are generally available to those who are expected to foot the bill?
Some people have a warped sense of fairness, it seems.

The problem is MG&E chose to fund its pension fund with stocks versus cash. It was a choice and risk taken by by MG&E management. If and when the stocks go back up, do you think the people would ever be reimbursed their money by having the prices drop?

I doubt this company ever went to the PSC asking to lower it's rates when the pension was fully funded. To lay the reason for increasing rates on a pension fund short fall screams of "lets says this--who would vote against funding the pension". They would get more credit from the public if they just stepped forward and said the truth.

Well, garyprimer, there are a lot of *unregulated* companies just raising your prices without even having to ask.

Arent pension funds what we partly pay into? at least where I work it is. This is what we work our tails off to have in the end. And with the cost of fuel being on the low side for a change why would they raise what they gouged us for the last couple of years. The bottom line any way is to get the working person to bail out the big guys. It is enough in my opinion!!!!! When is it going to end? I already button up and where warmer clothes, if I put anymore on I might as well be without heat at all!!!

The bottom line is that my private pension fund and many others are suffering from poor performance in the market. Are we expected to bite the bullet on our own retirements and yet cover the losses for others?

Lilbobby, sure companies should have pensions. But to raise energy rates that everyone in the city needs for a pension fund. I'm sure all energy companies have been in the black, even in bad times.

WOW didn't see this coming. Every year they say this.

This is the domino effect of a recession. Normally they would probably borrow to cover costs for a year or two until the fund rebounded, but credit is impossible to get. As a double whammy, demand for energy dips during a recession.
.
You can't just de-fund a pension without penalty -- you practically have to go bankrupt and eliminate the entire entitlement at one fell swoop. This is why some people (Republicans, mainly) want the auto companies to fail, so they can unload their obligations to their retirees.

They need to cut back on benefits if their pension fund is low.

so companies shouldn't have pension plans?

No surprise there....energy rates going up. Help out that company with it's pension fund. If the energy companies can not keep up with their obligations, how the hell can the rest of us?