Here’s an oddity: A utility company rate increase request that consumers can like.

National Grid has submitted a three-year plan to state regulators, asking for $390 million in rate increases—but structuring that increase so that utility bills don’t increase. Energy users will pay eventually, but given the tough economic times of the moment the innovative approach deserves support.

National Grid is repositioning as it seeks this three-year rate plan, contending it needs to upgrade upstate’s aging transmission and distribution network. The work will allow customer costs to remain steady, which has not always been the case in other parts of the state or country. What consumers may lose is a possible chance at a rate decrease in a few years, because the plan would charge higher rates for energy delivery now but push the utility’s allowed recovery of past costs further into the future.

Meanwhile, the area’s other major energy utility—Rochester- based New York State Electric&Gas—is trying to persuade the state Public Service Commission to allow a rate increase that will raise electric rates, adding $12 a month to a typical residential customer’s bill.

National Grid is hoping for a more receptive response after filing its rate proposal with the commission. The review process typically takes 11 months and the changes would, if approved, take effect next January.

Meanwhile, the company is taking the correct steps to in-form the public of its plans and present evidence that it has a strategy to mitigate the effect of any infrastructure upgrades. The company makes a strong argument.

The key change being sought would allow National Grid to increase its electricity delivery charges to the tune of more than $390 million per year, in response to out-of-pocket operating costs under its current agreement. To offset that increase, the company proposes delaying the recovery of $557 million in what are known as “stranded costs”—debt from plants and equipment no longer needed, as well as above-market power purchases the company was obligated to make more than a decade ago. National Grid is due to collect that compensation next year.

Ratepayers won’t be affected so much if that cost recovery is delayed. But the downside here is that if those costs were to be recovered on schedule, they would disappear from the bills—and, if infrastructure upgrades weren’t immediately necessary, ratepayers may have seen a decrease.

But these are “what if” scenarios and, as the economic recovery makes a slow ascent, it is difficult for the average consumer to deal with hypothetical situations. The here and now is a lot more important, especially when it doesn’t appear to affect the family budget. In this case, taking the bird in the hand seems the right course.

The Public Service Commission must take an even harder look through the details, of course, but so far National Grid officials are making a persuasive case for the need to change the rate structure based on infrastructure improvement needs.