The candidates papers must be in; they were due February 4.
There are two three-year positions for the Board of Selectmen. We can expect Don Goodwin and Joan Brooks are running again for the positions they have held for years. If they have no opposition, no reason to think they won't both be re-elected. Just as there's no reason to believe Joan won't be made Chair again. The earth turns.
Then there are two vacant School Board positions: One three-year position and one two-year position to represent Eddington on the more-or-less AOS 63 School Board (the two-year position is to fill out the one previously held by Karen Clark who moved out of town and is no longer eligible). The three-year position has been held by Pam Dorr who chose not to run for re-election.
This writer has heard there were two, and maybe three, individuals considering running. Their names are unfamiliar. All three appeared to be men.
Tomorrow night, March 1, will probably be the last Selectmen's meeting before the elections scheduled for March 21 (the Town Meeting is scheduled for 7:30 the following night at the Eddington Elementary School).
Unless the candidates for any of the positions plan to put out some kind of mailer, which is unlikely, what will be the basis for any votes cast?
*Has anyone seen any information regarding the qualifications of any candidate posted anywhere? Perhaps the government access channel (cable channel 7), which is prepared and posed by staff at the Eddington Town Office? Could be done, but doubtful it will be.
*Has there ever been anything printed on any ballot regarding any candidate other than his/her name and the office which s/he is seeking? It's done in other states, but I've never seen anything here in Eddington.
There was one candidate three years ago who mailed out postcards to over 300 registered Eddington voters. That same candidate successfully argued with the Board of Selectmen to hold a Candidates Night so candidates could present their qualifications and interest in running for the positions being sought. People who attended were able to ask the candidates questions and hear the candidates' positions on relevant issues. It wasn't a perfect solution but it was better than nothing, which is the norm.
The average School Board member in Eddington, where there are over 2,000 registered voters, is elected with less than 50 votes. Sometimes significantly less than 50 votes. The election of Selectmen don't fare much better. And yet, of the property taxes collected, 56 percent (a higher percentage will be the case in years to come) goes to pay for the School District budget.
This writer is a witness to the fact that the people who vote for the town's representative to the School Board NEVER attend School Board meetings and NEVER observe how their School Board members represent the town's voters and property owners.
There will be some who will argue the School Board members are there to manage the school district. They are wrong. That is the function of the District Superintendent.
The responsibility of the School Board is to hold the District Superintendent accountable for adhering to the District's policies and procedures - and to represent the best interest of the district's taxpayers. That is why each of the towns in the district has its own representative(s) on the Board. (It is the duty of the District Superintendent to supervises the District Central Office, which includes the District's Business Manager, and the District's school principals. The school principals supervise the teachers.)
But how do we, the voters, know which, if any of the candidates running from Eddington for the School Board are qualified or capable for the positions they are seeking?
*Do we know them? I don't.
*Do we know their educational or professional backgrounds? I don't.
Maybe they are good and honest people. That doesn't tell me anything about their abilities to do the job.
*Have they reviewed the requirements of the positions?
Do they know they will be required to participate on at least two committees, in addition to attending School Board meetings?
Are they willing to learn AND CHALLENGE, if need be, each and every line item in the monthly budget and finance reports, even if they are not on that committee?
Are they willing to hold both the District Superintendent AND the Business Manager accountable if (A) the monthly budget and finance reports are not produced and submitted on time? (B) the expenditures and explanations are not acceptable, logical or understandable? and (C) the Annual Audit documents are not ready for the Auditors by September 1 of each year?
The Bottom Line: The Controlling Bodies in Eddington (the Board of Selectmen, the Planning Board, and the three representatives on the School Board) have never shown any interest in finding out why there is a declining interest in voter participation in local issues. Surveys are resisted, but what else do we have?
*There is no local newspaper.
*A lot of people live in areas where they don't receive cable television (or can't afford it).
*Many of the older people in town don't have (or don't want - or don't know how to operate) a computer.
*The Post Office will only post legal and official notices.
*Notices are posted at the Tradewinds and the Eddington Store but many residents don't frequent those businesses on a regular basis.
Other than for national or state elections with high profile issues or candidates, there is a low voter turnout in Eddington.
Look at the number of people who turned out overall for the two Public Hearings regarding the proposed Wind Ordinance that will be voted on at the March 22 Town Meeting (see previous posting for more information), or the Public Hearings on the grant request for the Fire Department.
The lighted sign in front of the Town Office/Fire Department is blank most of the time. The Fire Department uses it more than the Town Office (other than for birthday greetings).
Last year there were fewer than 200 people at the Town Meeting. There may not be more than that number this year. The voting for these four offices on March 21 will probably generate fewer than 100.
In truth, how can anyone cast a vote for a name when the voter doesn't know what the name represents? Does a responsible citizen vote for a NAME when the citizen knows nothing about what is behind the name?
This citizen doesn't.
Monday, February 28, 2011
Friday, February 18, 2011
GOOD NEWS FOR BANGOR AND BORDERS - AND AMAZON IS ON THE MOVE
In my email news bag today, there was good news for Bangor's Borders Bookstore. It is NOT on the Hatchet List. Yahoo. The complete list for the USA, from Alaska to Hawaii was included. Nothing listed for the state of Maine. I have no idea how many Borders stores there are in Maine, but however many there are - none are on the list. Good news for us.
Another piece of book news that could relate to Maine is that the state of Texas decided to go after Amazon.com for $270 Million in taxes. Seems the distribution center for Amazon.com is located in Austin, Texas. Guess what? Amazon.com is moving that distribution center out of Texas. Not only will the state not collect those taxes, they won't be collecting any payroll taxes from the individuals who were working at the distribution center. Worthy of note: Texas does not have a state income tax. Maybe the state of Maine should consider marketing a business opportunity to Amazon.com. Of course that might require the Maine Public Utilities Commission to rein in utility costs across the state. Anyone still believe in Christmas miracles around here?
Another piece of book news that could relate to Maine is that the state of Texas decided to go after Amazon.com for $270 Million in taxes. Seems the distribution center for Amazon.com is located in Austin, Texas. Guess what? Amazon.com is moving that distribution center out of Texas. Not only will the state not collect those taxes, they won't be collecting any payroll taxes from the individuals who were working at the distribution center. Worthy of note: Texas does not have a state income tax. Maybe the state of Maine should consider marketing a business opportunity to Amazon.com. Of course that might require the Maine Public Utilities Commission to rein in utility costs across the state. Anyone still believe in Christmas miracles around here?
Thursday, February 17, 2011
WHAT WILL THE BORDERS BUST BODE FOR BANGOR?
From today's email bag, an article by Joshua Bodwell, President of Maine Writers and Publishers Alliance (MWPA). As some of you readers are aware, I write mystery novels (under a pen name) and am working toward becoming a published writer. Not an easy journey for anyone these days. It never was but in recent years with the large publishing houses buying up the smaller independent houses, it has become even more challenging. So this week's news regarding Borders and Barnes & Noble, the future for any writer is daunting. For those trying to break into the business, it could be devastating. Are we all doomed to e-books and Amazon.com?
***
"HELLO ALL,
As I drove to Bangor earlier this week (the MWPA is co-sponsoring the Bangor Book Festival in October!), I listened to the radio squawk news of the pending Borders bankruptcy. The news made me cringe at the thought of how many small presses, publishers, and therefore writers would lose their hard earned dollars.
Later in the week, Publisher’s Weekly put numbers to how much Borders owes:
“Publishers are on the hook for hundreds of millions of dollars led by Penguin Group (USA), which is owed $41.1 million, followed by Hachette at $36.9 million, Simon & Schuster at $33.8 million, Random House at $33.5 million, and HarperCollins at $25.8 million.”
The trickle-down effect of these losses—if in fact these publishers are not paid back by Borders—could have a serious impact on authors and writers hoping to be published—I don’t think devastating is too strong a word.
Then I came upon this other headline in Publisher’s Weekly: “Bookstore Sales Fell 1.4% in 2010.” An ominous tone?
Well, I was surprised to read the story and find that total bookstore sales equaled $16.50 billion in 2010. Billion. That could hardly be considered bad news, right?
Out of curiosity, I did a little research and found that 2010’s annual movie ticket sales totaled $10.65 billion—about $6 billion less than 2010’s bookstore sales. Pretty interesting, ay?
Wouldn’t conventional wisdom have us believe that far more people go see movies than read books today? I mean, aren’t we inundated with pundits bemoaning the death of books and reading? Well, this news about bookstore sales figures made me think of my favorite line in the book Freakanomics: “Conventional wisdom is often wrong.”
I was buoyed by the bookstore sales figures. And I hope you are, too. We know that things in the book business are changing. And quickly. But beyond that, very little can be assumed. So let’s keep faith, okay?
In the meantime: buy local."
***
"HELLO ALL,
As I drove to Bangor earlier this week (the MWPA is co-sponsoring the Bangor Book Festival in October!), I listened to the radio squawk news of the pending Borders bankruptcy. The news made me cringe at the thought of how many small presses, publishers, and therefore writers would lose their hard earned dollars.
Later in the week, Publisher’s Weekly put numbers to how much Borders owes:
“Publishers are on the hook for hundreds of millions of dollars led by Penguin Group (USA), which is owed $41.1 million, followed by Hachette at $36.9 million, Simon & Schuster at $33.8 million, Random House at $33.5 million, and HarperCollins at $25.8 million.”
The trickle-down effect of these losses—if in fact these publishers are not paid back by Borders—could have a serious impact on authors and writers hoping to be published—I don’t think devastating is too strong a word.
Then I came upon this other headline in Publisher’s Weekly: “Bookstore Sales Fell 1.4% in 2010.” An ominous tone?
Well, I was surprised to read the story and find that total bookstore sales equaled $16.50 billion in 2010. Billion. That could hardly be considered bad news, right?
Out of curiosity, I did a little research and found that 2010’s annual movie ticket sales totaled $10.65 billion—about $6 billion less than 2010’s bookstore sales. Pretty interesting, ay?
Wouldn’t conventional wisdom have us believe that far more people go see movies than read books today? I mean, aren’t we inundated with pundits bemoaning the death of books and reading? Well, this news about bookstore sales figures made me think of my favorite line in the book Freakanomics: “Conventional wisdom is often wrong.”
I was buoyed by the bookstore sales figures. And I hope you are, too. We know that things in the book business are changing. And quickly. But beyond that, very little can be assumed. So let’s keep faith, okay?
In the meantime: buy local."
Monday, February 14, 2011
THE EDDINGTON WIND ORDINANCE PUBLIC HEARING
The Public Hearing last Thursday evening on the proposed wind ordinance was both interesting and informative. Unfortunately, only about twenty people attended – normal for Eddington. It was the last of two Public Hearings on the matter. The first one had an attendance of 57. Fewer than 100 people out of over 2000 registered voters. With so much on the line, no further comment is necessary.
This will be an important decision for the town.
The vote on the ordinance will be taken at the Town Meeting March 22. If this ordinance, as written, fails, anyone wanting to put up a wind turbine will be able to do so with few restrictions.
Two companies have expressed interest in exploring a project in Eddington. One is Cianbro in Brewer, ME; the other is Eolian in Portmouth, NH. If this ordinance, as written, passes, both of the two companies have indicated they will withdraw any consideration of bringing their business to our town. This can cost Eddington millions in the town's tax base and employment opportunities.
This writer listened with interest to some of those who spoke up Thursday. I will admit, some were so closed-minded to the thought of any wind turbines anywhere, not just in Eddington, I found it difficult to consider their comments objectively.
However, the following information did cause me to pause re the establishment of wind turbines here:
1. If a turbine fails, or comes to the end of its lifetime or the company that built it goes into bankruptcy, the town is left with a monstrosity and an environmental disaster area. (What I did not realize before the meeting: the entire site for the number of turbines would be leveled – trees and growth removed and the ground [probably] asphalted. We are talking about a significant area depending upon the number of turbines. If the site is the top of a mountain, scenic views are destroyed permanently.) Roads to the turbine site are may need to be cut through forested areas, as well. If the company abandons the project, the town is left with unattended roads and an eyesore.
A Possible Solution to this issue would be a required Bond to cover the cost of removal of any and all turbines and restitution of the site and road area prior to the issuance of any permit.
The town now requires Bonds from housing project developers to insure roads, culverts, etc. are completed. Something similar could be required for wind turbine developers. HOWEVER, this requirement would need to be added to the existing document. And should be. There is always the possibility that some developers could come along and meet even the conservative/stringent requirement in the proposed ordinance. It may be that this should be an addendum to be added at the town meeting EVEN if the current proposed ordinance is passed. Consider it an Insurance Policy.
2. The members of the Planning Board reviewed extensive documents, films, websites, etc. of wind turbine projects in Sweden, Norway and Germany as well as in the United States. Members of the Board stated that communities in the other countries are now trying to shut down and prohibit these projects in communities for a variety of reasons. It was obvious the Board has done a lot of work in preparing the proposed ordinance and they should be commended.
3. The Mars Hill Project. People in Eddington have heard of the problems people living in Mars Hill are experiencing. While their project meets the state’s requirements, doctors have tested people living up to 3,000 feet away from the turbines. Doctors have found those people are experiencing problems from either the constant noise or vibrations. The proposed Eddington wind ordinance has conservative setback guidelines for industrial/commercial operation turbines with specific requirements for waivers.
4. The Eddington proposed ordinance sets specific requirements for residential towers and for large commercial/industrial turbine operations.
5. It was reported that at least one of the businesses that approached the Planning Board stated they would not be interested in these projected if they did not receive federal stimulus money to do them. (If the stimulus money is cut, what happens to a project? To the town?)
6. One of the businesses expressing interest in a wind energy project in Eddington stated to this writer that negotiations with a town usually results in about $2,000.00/year per turbine for the life of the turbine. While this sounds great from the point of adding to the tax base, some people at Thursday’s meeting stated the more income the town receives from such a project meets with equal revenue sharing cuts from the state. Bottom line: Every dollar gained from a project would result in equal dollars lost from state revenue. Whether or not this is true, I don't know. However, it only adds more justification to obtaining a Bond up front for “end-of-project” take-down and clean-up.
In conclusion: Any resident who did not attend one of the Public Hearings should go to the Town Office and obtain a copy of the proposed Wind Ordinance and READ IT. Then plan to attend the Town Meeting March 22 at the Eddington Elementary School at 7:30pm and VOTE.
This will be an important decision for the town.
The vote on the ordinance will be taken at the Town Meeting March 22. If this ordinance, as written, fails, anyone wanting to put up a wind turbine will be able to do so with few restrictions.
Two companies have expressed interest in exploring a project in Eddington. One is Cianbro in Brewer, ME; the other is Eolian in Portmouth, NH. If this ordinance, as written, passes, both of the two companies have indicated they will withdraw any consideration of bringing their business to our town. This can cost Eddington millions in the town's tax base and employment opportunities.
This writer listened with interest to some of those who spoke up Thursday. I will admit, some were so closed-minded to the thought of any wind turbines anywhere, not just in Eddington, I found it difficult to consider their comments objectively.
However, the following information did cause me to pause re the establishment of wind turbines here:
1. If a turbine fails, or comes to the end of its lifetime or the company that built it goes into bankruptcy, the town is left with a monstrosity and an environmental disaster area. (What I did not realize before the meeting: the entire site for the number of turbines would be leveled – trees and growth removed and the ground [probably] asphalted. We are talking about a significant area depending upon the number of turbines. If the site is the top of a mountain, scenic views are destroyed permanently.) Roads to the turbine site are may need to be cut through forested areas, as well. If the company abandons the project, the town is left with unattended roads and an eyesore.
A Possible Solution to this issue would be a required Bond to cover the cost of removal of any and all turbines and restitution of the site and road area prior to the issuance of any permit.
The town now requires Bonds from housing project developers to insure roads, culverts, etc. are completed. Something similar could be required for wind turbine developers. HOWEVER, this requirement would need to be added to the existing document. And should be. There is always the possibility that some developers could come along and meet even the conservative/stringent requirement in the proposed ordinance. It may be that this should be an addendum to be added at the town meeting EVEN if the current proposed ordinance is passed. Consider it an Insurance Policy.
2. The members of the Planning Board reviewed extensive documents, films, websites, etc. of wind turbine projects in Sweden, Norway and Germany as well as in the United States. Members of the Board stated that communities in the other countries are now trying to shut down and prohibit these projects in communities for a variety of reasons. It was obvious the Board has done a lot of work in preparing the proposed ordinance and they should be commended.
3. The Mars Hill Project. People in Eddington have heard of the problems people living in Mars Hill are experiencing. While their project meets the state’s requirements, doctors have tested people living up to 3,000 feet away from the turbines. Doctors have found those people are experiencing problems from either the constant noise or vibrations. The proposed Eddington wind ordinance has conservative setback guidelines for industrial/commercial operation turbines with specific requirements for waivers.
4. The Eddington proposed ordinance sets specific requirements for residential towers and for large commercial/industrial turbine operations.
5. It was reported that at least one of the businesses that approached the Planning Board stated they would not be interested in these projected if they did not receive federal stimulus money to do them. (If the stimulus money is cut, what happens to a project? To the town?)
6. One of the businesses expressing interest in a wind energy project in Eddington stated to this writer that negotiations with a town usually results in about $2,000.00/year per turbine for the life of the turbine. While this sounds great from the point of adding to the tax base, some people at Thursday’s meeting stated the more income the town receives from such a project meets with equal revenue sharing cuts from the state. Bottom line: Every dollar gained from a project would result in equal dollars lost from state revenue. Whether or not this is true, I don't know. However, it only adds more justification to obtaining a Bond up front for “end-of-project” take-down and clean-up.
In conclusion: Any resident who did not attend one of the Public Hearings should go to the Town Office and obtain a copy of the proposed Wind Ordinance and READ IT. Then plan to attend the Town Meeting March 22 at the Eddington Elementary School at 7:30pm and VOTE.
Sunday, February 13, 2011
TELL ME THE MAINE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION ARE REALLY OVERSEERS ON THE PUBLIC'S BEHALF? IF SO, WHAT HAVE THEY BEEN SMOKING THE LAST 30 YEARS?
The following is a statement (written testimony) submitted by taxpayer and Maine resident, Helen Patterson. This statement has been sent to the Maine Public Utilities Commission (MPUC) in opposition to the approved rate increase currently being sought by Bangor Hydro Electric Company.
This writer has both spoken with Mrs. Patterson and read her previously submitted questions to Bangor Hydro after reviewing the numerous documents they submitted to the MPUC in support of the requested original rate increase. This writer has found Ms. Patterson to be a very intelligent woman, not someone easily put down by "authorities."
For purposes of full disclosure, this writer has also submitted a letter to the MPUC in oppostion to the proposed rate increase.
A previous blog posted in early January discussed this issue.
The information (facts) which Ms. Patterson presents in her statement, which appears below, was acquired by her participation in one of the MPUC's designated Technical Conferences. (A Technical Conference is a convenient way of bringing all interested parties together by way of a telephonic conference to conduct a hearing where some parties can participate in presentation and cross-examination of witnesses and others can listen in.)
The Technical Conferences represented here involved the attorneys representing Bangor Hydro, the Maine Office of the Public Advocate and legal counsel for a group of Maine residents who petitioned to question witnesses. Other parties, including Ms. Patterson, were also "present" to listen and to ask questions.
This writer did not "attend" any of the Technical Conferences because, until Ms. Patterson was kind enough to actually explain how they worked, I expected my "testimony" to be presented at an actual hearing. The Hearing Examiner was not inclined to provide any information in "plain English" as to what the procedures were via email even though he was asked to do so. So much for being an objective examiner and weigh-er of facts and input or paid public servant.
For those residents of Maine who receive bills for electrical services from Bangor Hydro Electric Company (called Stranded Cost Customers), the following should be of interest:
NOTE: And Intervenor is (for purposes of this case, identified by the docket number,) those individuals who are petitioning/protesting the rate increase.
*****
STATE OF MAINE Docket No. 2010-377
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION FEBRUARY 11, 2011
BANGOR HYDRO-ELECTRIC COMPANY INTERVENOR
Investigation into Bangor Hydro’s TESTIMONY
Stranded Cost Revenue Requirement and Rates
The title of this case is Bangor Hydro Electric Company investigation into Bangor Hydro’s Stranded Cost Revenue Requirements and Rates. Stranded costs are associated with power supply functions of a utility business.
Bangor Hydro Electric Company does not generate power. It is solely a T & D transmission and distribution company. No stranded costs whatsoever should be recovered in this case nor in any other by Bangor Hydro Electric Company.
What’s more all the money taken from ratepayers for stranded costs illegitimately is owed back to them. It should be paid back lump sum, cash.
The standard ROE, return on equity is 5.5%, not the 8.5% BHE asked for in this case.
(Refer to 2/8/11 ME PUC Technical Conference transcript questions, B. Smith Hearing Examiner)
In a series of cases BHE has been setting ROE’s without a PUC accounting order.
(Refer to 2/8/11 ME PUC Technical Conference transcript questions, B. Smith Hearing Examiner)
BHE has failed to seek lower interest rate refinancing that is standard in the utility business.
(Refer 2/8/11 ME PUC Technical Conference transcript questions, B. Smith Hearing Examiner)
Bangor Hydro’s unfunded pension liabilities that date from the time of the Emera
purchase contract are an inappropriate expense to ratepayers in this case.
Bangor Hydro Electric Company has failed to prove that its rate request in this case
is appropriate and necessary. It has not adhered to economic efficiency standards.
Therefore, BHE’s rate request should be Denied.
Helen Patterson, Intervenor
33 Henderson Street
Brownville, ME 04414 207-965-8442
****
Readers: If you would like to read the Virtual Case File for 2010-377, the docket number assigned to this case (all of the documents and testimony submitted and gathered to date), you can do so by following these steps using your computer:
www.maine.gov/mpuc
click online filing docketed cases, forms and rfps
click virtual case file
click enter virtual case file
click case id (ONLY) enter 2010377 (no dash)
click search entire case is there
PLEASE NOTE: Do not fill in any other information except the case id#, despite the fact there will be many other blanks to trick you
NOW, do YOU want to send a statement to protest the rate increase. Go Ahead. You, too, have the right to do so, especially since the Hearing Examiner has decided there will be NO PUBLIC HEARINGS to provide the public with any opportunity to tell the Maine Public Utility Commissioners what the public thinks about this proposed rate increase Bangor Hydro, a Canadian Company, wants Maine residents to pay.
Address your statements to: The Administrative Director, Maine Public Utilities Commission, 18 State House Station, Augusta, ME 04333-0018. Or, you can fax your statement to: Ms. Paula Cyr, Clerk of the Commission, (207) 287-1039.
Copies of your statements should be sent to the following (fax numbers are provided):
Agnes Gormley, Senior Legal Counsel, Office of the Public Advocate (these are the good guys) (207) 287-4317; Norma Healy, legal counsel for Bangor Hydro (207) 253-4721
Bottom Line: Both individuals and business owners need to let the MPUC know this rate increase is both illegal, morally wrong and bad for the financial recovery of the State of Maine.
This writer has both spoken with Mrs. Patterson and read her previously submitted questions to Bangor Hydro after reviewing the numerous documents they submitted to the MPUC in support of the requested original rate increase. This writer has found Ms. Patterson to be a very intelligent woman, not someone easily put down by "authorities."
For purposes of full disclosure, this writer has also submitted a letter to the MPUC in oppostion to the proposed rate increase.
A previous blog posted in early January discussed this issue.
The information (facts) which Ms. Patterson presents in her statement, which appears below, was acquired by her participation in one of the MPUC's designated Technical Conferences. (A Technical Conference is a convenient way of bringing all interested parties together by way of a telephonic conference to conduct a hearing where some parties can participate in presentation and cross-examination of witnesses and others can listen in.)
The Technical Conferences represented here involved the attorneys representing Bangor Hydro, the Maine Office of the Public Advocate and legal counsel for a group of Maine residents who petitioned to question witnesses. Other parties, including Ms. Patterson, were also "present" to listen and to ask questions.
This writer did not "attend" any of the Technical Conferences because, until Ms. Patterson was kind enough to actually explain how they worked, I expected my "testimony" to be presented at an actual hearing. The Hearing Examiner was not inclined to provide any information in "plain English" as to what the procedures were via email even though he was asked to do so. So much for being an objective examiner and weigh-er of facts and input or paid public servant.
For those residents of Maine who receive bills for electrical services from Bangor Hydro Electric Company (called Stranded Cost Customers), the following should be of interest:
NOTE: And Intervenor is (for purposes of this case, identified by the docket number,) those individuals who are petitioning/protesting the rate increase.
*****
STATE OF MAINE Docket No. 2010-377
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION FEBRUARY 11, 2011
BANGOR HYDRO-ELECTRIC COMPANY INTERVENOR
Investigation into Bangor Hydro’s TESTIMONY
Stranded Cost Revenue Requirement and Rates
The title of this case is Bangor Hydro Electric Company investigation into Bangor Hydro’s Stranded Cost Revenue Requirements and Rates. Stranded costs are associated with power supply functions of a utility business.
Bangor Hydro Electric Company does not generate power. It is solely a T & D transmission and distribution company. No stranded costs whatsoever should be recovered in this case nor in any other by Bangor Hydro Electric Company.
What’s more all the money taken from ratepayers for stranded costs illegitimately is owed back to them. It should be paid back lump sum, cash.
The standard ROE, return on equity is 5.5%, not the 8.5% BHE asked for in this case.
(Refer to 2/8/11 ME PUC Technical Conference transcript questions, B. Smith Hearing Examiner)
In a series of cases BHE has been setting ROE’s without a PUC accounting order.
(Refer to 2/8/11 ME PUC Technical Conference transcript questions, B. Smith Hearing Examiner)
BHE has failed to seek lower interest rate refinancing that is standard in the utility business.
(Refer 2/8/11 ME PUC Technical Conference transcript questions, B. Smith Hearing Examiner)
Bangor Hydro’s unfunded pension liabilities that date from the time of the Emera
purchase contract are an inappropriate expense to ratepayers in this case.
Bangor Hydro Electric Company has failed to prove that its rate request in this case
is appropriate and necessary. It has not adhered to economic efficiency standards.
Therefore, BHE’s rate request should be Denied.
Helen Patterson, Intervenor
33 Henderson Street
Brownville, ME 04414 207-965-8442
****
Readers: If you would like to read the Virtual Case File for 2010-377, the docket number assigned to this case (all of the documents and testimony submitted and gathered to date), you can do so by following these steps using your computer:
www.maine.gov/mpuc
click online filing docketed cases, forms and rfps
click virtual case file
click enter virtual case file
click case id (ONLY) enter 2010377 (no dash)
click search entire case is there
PLEASE NOTE: Do not fill in any other information except the case id#, despite the fact there will be many other blanks to trick you
NOW, do YOU want to send a statement to protest the rate increase. Go Ahead. You, too, have the right to do so, especially since the Hearing Examiner has decided there will be NO PUBLIC HEARINGS to provide the public with any opportunity to tell the Maine Public Utility Commissioners what the public thinks about this proposed rate increase Bangor Hydro, a Canadian Company, wants Maine residents to pay.
Address your statements to: The Administrative Director, Maine Public Utilities Commission, 18 State House Station, Augusta, ME 04333-0018. Or, you can fax your statement to: Ms. Paula Cyr, Clerk of the Commission, (207) 287-1039.
Copies of your statements should be sent to the following (fax numbers are provided):
Agnes Gormley, Senior Legal Counsel, Office of the Public Advocate (these are the good guys) (207) 287-4317; Norma Healy, legal counsel for Bangor Hydro (207) 253-4721
Bottom Line: Both individuals and business owners need to let the MPUC know this rate increase is both illegal, morally wrong and bad for the financial recovery of the State of Maine.
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
HOW POTENTIAL VENDORS VIEW EDDINGTON'S PROPOSED WIND ORDINANCE
A few days ago I sent an email to Travis Bullard, Senior Development Manager for Eolian Renewable Energy. I asked him to respond to their company's perspective to the proposed Wind Ordinance as it is currently written. I did this based on my observations at an Eddington Selectmen's Meeting where Mr. Bullard and one of his associates presented existing wind noise charts for Black Cap Mountain, the only area viable for wind turbines in Eddington and which would be directly impacted by the proposed Wind Ordinance.
The following is the email response I received today from Mr. Bullard. Voters in Eddington might want to read his information, particularly if they have not, or will not be attending this Thursday's Public Hearing on the proposed Ordinance.
Please note, the bold emphasis in Mr. Bullard's response has been added by this writer. Since Maine must come up with several Billion dollars before 2028 to cover the unpaid retirement costs for Maine employees and teachers, all property owners can expect their taxes to go up in the coming years to meet that demand. Therefore, it would behoove all of us to look at anything that is going to add to our local tax base.*****
"Hello Rusty:
Thank you very much for your inquiry regarding the proposed wind energy ordinance in the Town of Eddington. As you know, Eolian has participated in the public meeting process surrounding the proposed wind ordinance and has offered detailed feedback to the Planning Board and Selectmen.
As you mention in your email, Black Cap Mountain has been identified as a potential location that may be suitable for wind turbines due to the available wind resource, the existing site impacts (access road and 11 communications towers) and relative proximity to transmission for grid interconnection, as well as the lack of nearby residences. Based on initial review it also appears to be free from any significant critical environmental restrictions. It is almost certain that this would be the
only possible location for a commercial wind energy facility in town. In looking for suitable locations to site wind energy facilities in Maine and throughout New England, Eolian focuses exclusively on sites that have existing impact such as this and that can lead to high performance wind facilities with minimal additional impact. And we focus only on projects in the smaller range of the commercial spectrum, which we believe are the best fit for New England landscapes.
It is our view that if this proposed Ordinance were passed, permitting a wind facility in Eddington would not be possible. Again, we have provided detailed documentation on specific sections of the Ordinance that we believe create onerous restrictions to the point where permitting would be impossible. Mostly, these relate to the sound regulations, which are not based on scientific studies or measurable impacts, but rather on arbitrary setback requirements that cannot be achieved anywhere in town. There are a host of other issues with the ordinance related to enforceability as well that I would be happy to discuss with you from our perspective. We believe that the record also shows that others who have experience with wind energy facilities concur with our concerns. So, very simply, we believe this Ordinance, in effect, prohibits commercial wind development in town.
With regard to the benefits of wind energy developments, if one were to occur in Eddington, there are many. First is revenue: wind facilities pay substantial amounts each year into a town's tax base. The exact amount of money depends on the total project size and other factors, but wind facilities are often the largest taxpayer in town and provide steady revenue every year for the duration of the project life. These additional tax benefits come at no additional cost to the town, because there is no increase in town expenses for policing, fire, schooling, road maintenance, sewer and other municipal services as there are with many other forms of economic development. In addition to direct tax revenues, there are substantial local benefits that accrue indirectly during construction and operation, including construction job creation, direct purchases from local vendors, lease payments to landowners, and creation of maintenance jobs.
In addition to direct and indirect economic benefits, wind energy often acts as a de facto open space preservation tool.Landowners who lease their properties to wind energy facilities receive revenue from lease payments from wind turbines that use a very small portion of the land. These benefits allow landowners to keep large forested parcels in tact. In some instances, wind facilities are able to directly conserve land as conservation areas associated with the project, and in other instances the preservation effect results as a natural by-product of the revenue from the wind turbines.On Black Cap, where there are currently 11 towers, four of them with lighting at elevations of up to 400 feet tall, bringing a wind energy facility would allow for removal of certain towers and consolidation of the remaining towers, hence cleaning up the skyline and arguably improving the scenic character. Turbines do attract visitors, which can help boost local tourism.
Finally, in New England, power prices are driven largely by natural gas, which is fossil fuel based and subject to great future price uncertainty, as well as deleterious effects from drilling for the fuel (or mining in the case of coal), and carbon emissions from burning it. Wind facilities bring stable long term power to the New England grid and Maine's domestic power supply from clean domestic sources.
In all, we believe that the Black Cap Mountain site in Eddington has the potential to be a successful site for a moderately sized wind facility. We are hopeful that there will be an opportunity to advance a project there someday in the context of an Ordinance that would properly regulate, but still allow wind to be a part of the town.
Thanks again for reaching out and please let me know if you would like to connect further by phone.
Best Regards,
Travis
___________________________
Travis Bullard
Senior Development Manager
Eolian Renewable Energy LLC
155 Fleet Street
Portsmouth, NH 03801
603.570.4842 Office
603.457.0065 Fax
207.272.3898 Mobile
tbullard@eolian-energy.com
www.eolian-energy.com"
The following is the email response I received today from Mr. Bullard. Voters in Eddington might want to read his information, particularly if they have not, or will not be attending this Thursday's Public Hearing on the proposed Ordinance.
Please note, the bold emphasis in Mr. Bullard's response has been added by this writer. Since Maine must come up with several Billion dollars before 2028 to cover the unpaid retirement costs for Maine employees and teachers, all property owners can expect their taxes to go up in the coming years to meet that demand. Therefore, it would behoove all of us to look at anything that is going to add to our local tax base.*****
"Hello Rusty:
Thank you very much for your inquiry regarding the proposed wind energy ordinance in the Town of Eddington. As you know, Eolian has participated in the public meeting process surrounding the proposed wind ordinance and has offered detailed feedback to the Planning Board and Selectmen.
As you mention in your email, Black Cap Mountain has been identified as a potential location that may be suitable for wind turbines due to the available wind resource, the existing site impacts (access road and 11 communications towers) and relative proximity to transmission for grid interconnection, as well as the lack of nearby residences. Based on initial review it also appears to be free from any significant critical environmental restrictions. It is almost certain that this would be the
only possible location for a commercial wind energy facility in town. In looking for suitable locations to site wind energy facilities in Maine and throughout New England, Eolian focuses exclusively on sites that have existing impact such as this and that can lead to high performance wind facilities with minimal additional impact. And we focus only on projects in the smaller range of the commercial spectrum, which we believe are the best fit for New England landscapes.
It is our view that if this proposed Ordinance were passed, permitting a wind facility in Eddington would not be possible. Again, we have provided detailed documentation on specific sections of the Ordinance that we believe create onerous restrictions to the point where permitting would be impossible. Mostly, these relate to the sound regulations, which are not based on scientific studies or measurable impacts, but rather on arbitrary setback requirements that cannot be achieved anywhere in town. There are a host of other issues with the ordinance related to enforceability as well that I would be happy to discuss with you from our perspective. We believe that the record also shows that others who have experience with wind energy facilities concur with our concerns. So, very simply, we believe this Ordinance, in effect, prohibits commercial wind development in town.
With regard to the benefits of wind energy developments, if one were to occur in Eddington, there are many. First is revenue: wind facilities pay substantial amounts each year into a town's tax base. The exact amount of money depends on the total project size and other factors, but wind facilities are often the largest taxpayer in town and provide steady revenue every year for the duration of the project life. These additional tax benefits come at no additional cost to the town, because there is no increase in town expenses for policing, fire, schooling, road maintenance, sewer and other municipal services as there are with many other forms of economic development. In addition to direct tax revenues, there are substantial local benefits that accrue indirectly during construction and operation, including construction job creation, direct purchases from local vendors, lease payments to landowners, and creation of maintenance jobs.
In addition to direct and indirect economic benefits, wind energy often acts as a de facto open space preservation tool.Landowners who lease their properties to wind energy facilities receive revenue from lease payments from wind turbines that use a very small portion of the land. These benefits allow landowners to keep large forested parcels in tact. In some instances, wind facilities are able to directly conserve land as conservation areas associated with the project, and in other instances the preservation effect results as a natural by-product of the revenue from the wind turbines.On Black Cap, where there are currently 11 towers, four of them with lighting at elevations of up to 400 feet tall, bringing a wind energy facility would allow for removal of certain towers and consolidation of the remaining towers, hence cleaning up the skyline and arguably improving the scenic character. Turbines do attract visitors, which can help boost local tourism.
Finally, in New England, power prices are driven largely by natural gas, which is fossil fuel based and subject to great future price uncertainty, as well as deleterious effects from drilling for the fuel (or mining in the case of coal), and carbon emissions from burning it. Wind facilities bring stable long term power to the New England grid and Maine's domestic power supply from clean domestic sources.
In all, we believe that the Black Cap Mountain site in Eddington has the potential to be a successful site for a moderately sized wind facility. We are hopeful that there will be an opportunity to advance a project there someday in the context of an Ordinance that would properly regulate, but still allow wind to be a part of the town.
Thanks again for reaching out and please let me know if you would like to connect further by phone.
Best Regards,
Travis
___________________________
Travis Bullard
Senior Development Manager
Eolian Renewable Energy LLC
155 Fleet Street
Portsmouth, NH 03801
603.570.4842 Office
603.457.0065 Fax
207.272.3898 Mobile
tbullard@eolian-energy.com
www.eolian-energy.com"
Monday, February 7, 2011
THURSDAY - FEBRUARY 10 - PUBLIC HEARING AT EDDINGTON TOWN OFFICE
This coming Thursday there will be a Public Hearing at 6:30pm at the Town Office. The topic will be the Eddington Planning Committee's proposed Wind Ordinance. Because there is a company, Eolian, interested in developing some wind towers on Black Cap Mountain which will generate both wind energy and income for the town, it is important for the residents and voters to attend this meeting if they didn't attend the one on January 27th.
This will be the second and final Public Hearing before the required Town Meeting to vote on the Ordinance unless the Planning Committee decides to go back and make revisions based on input from the community.
Considering the fact that Bangor Hydro is currently petitioning the Maine Public Utilities Commission for a rate increase, any alternative energy source for the town should be carefully reviewed.
This writer has been accepted by the MPUC as a "petitioner" to speak against the Bangor Hydro rate increase, along with other groups and individuals. A Public Hearing in the Bangor area is reportedly planned by the MPUC. When specific information is received, it will be posted here on this blog site.
In the meantime, Eddington residents are urged to become informed of the proposed Wind Ordinance being put forward for the voters. The Planning Committee has worked for over a year on the matter and the members' work should be appreciated and respected. At the same time, we should welcome business opportunities interested in coming to our town.
This will be the second and final Public Hearing before the required Town Meeting to vote on the Ordinance unless the Planning Committee decides to go back and make revisions based on input from the community.
Considering the fact that Bangor Hydro is currently petitioning the Maine Public Utilities Commission for a rate increase, any alternative energy source for the town should be carefully reviewed.
This writer has been accepted by the MPUC as a "petitioner" to speak against the Bangor Hydro rate increase, along with other groups and individuals. A Public Hearing in the Bangor area is reportedly planned by the MPUC. When specific information is received, it will be posted here on this blog site.
In the meantime, Eddington residents are urged to become informed of the proposed Wind Ordinance being put forward for the voters. The Planning Committee has worked for over a year on the matter and the members' work should be appreciated and respected. At the same time, we should welcome business opportunities interested in coming to our town.
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
BORDERS BOOKSTORE RIGHT ON TRACK WITH JANET CHAPMAN SATURDAY
Last Saturday, January 29, Janet Chapman, a local writer of Romance novels, was at the Bangor Borders Bookstore on Stillwater avenue. Janet, who lives in one of the small communities outside Bangor, has fans around the world and her novels are published in several languages.
So is should have been no surprise to the staff at Borders that fans showed up from Presque Isle to New Hampshire to hear her read and sign her books they wanted to buy. But it was. Oh my. Yes it was. Fortunately, Borders had had the forethought to have several of Janet's books mailed to the store from the Publisher overnight via Federal express. Just goes to show how loyal book fans are - the kind who read real books. (It's hard to sign an e-book, don't you know.)
According to one of the people present, a close friend of Janet and another novelist, even Janet was shocked to see how far her fans had traveled just to meet her. But she was their one and only reason for the trip.
Janet Chapman is her real name and it is the name under which she writes. Women are her primary fans, but even men sometimes get hooked on Janet's books. With her new publisher, her fans should be even happier because there will be more of her books published annually.
Thank you, Bangor Borders. It's a great store.
So is should have been no surprise to the staff at Borders that fans showed up from Presque Isle to New Hampshire to hear her read and sign her books they wanted to buy. But it was. Oh my. Yes it was. Fortunately, Borders had had the forethought to have several of Janet's books mailed to the store from the Publisher overnight via Federal express. Just goes to show how loyal book fans are - the kind who read real books. (It's hard to sign an e-book, don't you know.)
According to one of the people present, a close friend of Janet and another novelist, even Janet was shocked to see how far her fans had traveled just to meet her. But she was their one and only reason for the trip.
Janet Chapman is her real name and it is the name under which she writes. Women are her primary fans, but even men sometimes get hooked on Janet's books. With her new publisher, her fans should be even happier because there will be more of her books published annually.
Thank you, Bangor Borders. It's a great store.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
