Last week's Annual Town Meeting was the most attended gathering this writer has seen in several years. Attendance was 123.
Of course, when that number is compared to the number of full-time town residents or the number of registered voters, the attendance was abysmal.
There was little discussion regarding the basic warrant issues. One change was to define "long-term commitment" when it comes to grants and contributions that would generate a Special Town Meeting.
Two or three years ago, voters determined that the Board of Selectmen would have to receive the approval of the voters before applying for any grants (or accept any contributions) that require or would result in any financial long-term commitment by the town, such as a grant for a new position that would require the town to pick up the compensation and benefits after a set period. Last week the voters decided that "long-term" will mean two years or more.
Following quite a bit of discussion, the proposed Wind Ordinance as submitted by the Planning Board was approved. Perhaps the objections were overcome by the assurances by a member of the Board that the Ordinance could be "tweaked" in the future should the science change or issues justify such action.
Voting Results for the previous day's election were announced.
For the two Board of Selectmen positions, with three candidates: Donn Goodwin received 105 votes; Joan Brooks received 83 votes; and Mike Shephard received 81 votes. Although both Goodwin and Brooks were incumbents, Mike Shephard's showing is encouraging. Maybe there is a change in the wind. We can only hope.
For the 3-year term on the School Board, Jeff Thurlow (former member of the Planning Board) received 132 votes. Jeff ran unopposed.
For the 2-year term, to finish out former representative Karen Clark's term, Don McKenzie received 97 votes. Mr. McKenzie is retired from positions with the Fire Department and Code Enforcement in Massachusetts where he and his wife lived before relocating to Eddington.
Also running for that 2-year position was Dustin Rath who received 32 votes. The voting results may have been fortuitous since Mr. Rath was informed the day before the vote that he was being transferred out-of-state and would have been unable to serve had he been elected.
The total number of voters (for Selectmen and School Representatives) was 146, even more than the number of people who showed up for the Town Meeting. Once more, this was the largest voter turnout for a local election that has been seen in recent years. Now, if we could get the Board of Selectmen to schedule Candidates Night in conjunction with the Public Hearings prior to the Town Meeting, Eddington might actually appear to have a form of democracy and an informed voter base. With all the activities to celebrate the town's 200th birthday, it's time for Eddington to practice real democratic government. Of course, that also requires committed and involved citizens.
Monday, March 28, 2011
Thursday, March 17, 2011
DIRECTIONS TO PUBLIC HEARING
The Richard E Dyke Family for Business center on the Husson College campus. If traveling Hwy 95, get off at exit 185 (Broadway). Take Broadway (right turn) past shopping area (Governor's Restaurant, Hortons, Irving Gas Station, etc.) to Husson Ave. Left turn off Broadway to entrance into campus (Cross Lane). At the campus circle road, take right. Building appears to be first one (brick) on the left.
WHERE IS BANGOR HYDRO'S DEBT?
With the hope there will be a decent attendance TONIGHT at the PUC's Public Hearing re: Bangor Hydro Electric's attempt to raise rates for residential customers, the following NEWS BREAKING information is provided. (Remember, these rate increases - called Stranded Cost rates are to address BHE's outstanding debts. According to the BHE spokesperson on the WABI TV news last night stated go back to when BHE sold its energy generating abilities to Emera, the Canadian corporation, approximately 10 years ago.) The Public Hearing begins at 6pm - Richard E. Dyke Center for Family Business at Husson College in Bangor. (Access to the college is off Broadway.)
***
Yesterday, March 16, Emera issued a Press Release out of HALIFAX, (with the notation in Bold Letters "NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION TO U.S. NEWSWIRE SERVICES OR FOR DISSEMINATION IN THE UNITED STATES" -
"Emera Incorporated ("Emera") (TSX: EMA) is pleased to announce today that it has completed its bought deal offering of 6,359,500 common shares (the "Common Shares"), which includes the exercise in full over-allotment option of 829,500 Common Shares, at $31.70 per Common Share for aggregate gross proceeds to Emera of approximately $201.8 million (emphasis added by this writer) (the "Offering"). The syndicate of underwriters was led by CIBC World Markets Inc., Scotia Capital Inc., TD Securities Inc. and RBC Dominion Securities Inc., and also included BMO Nesbitt Burns Inc. and the National Bank Financial Inc.
The net proceeds of the Offering will be used for general corporate purposes, including repayment of the indebtedness under Emera's credit facility.
The Common Shares have not been registered under the U.S. Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and may not be offered or sold in the United States absent registration or an applicable exemption from the registration requirements. This media release shall not constitute an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy, nor shall there be any offer, solicitation or sale of the securities in any province, state or jurisdiction in which such an offer, solicitation or sale would be unlawful.
Forward Looking Information:
This news release contains forward looking information. Actual future results may differ materially. Additional financial and operational information is filed electronically with various securities commissions in Canada through the System for Electronic Document Analysis and Retrieval (SEDAR).
About Emera
Emera Inc. is a growing energy and services company with $6.3 billion in assets and revenues of $1.6 billion. The company invests in electricity generation transmission and distribution as well as gas transmission and utility energy services. Emera's strategy is focused on the transformation of the electricity industry to cleaner generation and the delivery of the clean energy to market. Emera operates throughout northeastern North America, in three Caribbean countries and in California. More than 80% of the company's earnings come from regulated investments. Emera shares are listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange and trade under the symbol EMA. Additional information can be accessed at www.emera.com - or - www.sedar.com"
Questions for BHE ratepayers:
(1) Who owns BHE? Emera Inc.?
(2) Why aren't/weren't any BHE debts delegated to Emera at the time BHE sold its energy generating capabilities to Emera?
(3) Since the proposed stranded cost rates will be applied to the Transmission & Delivery portion of ratepayers bills, and Transmission & Delivery is part of Emera's business - why shouldn't Emera being absorbing any outstanding BHE debts (instead of Maine ratepayers being burdened with those debts)?
***
Yesterday, March 16, Emera issued a Press Release out of HALIFAX, (with the notation in Bold Letters "NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION TO U.S. NEWSWIRE SERVICES OR FOR DISSEMINATION IN THE UNITED STATES" -
"Emera Incorporated ("Emera") (TSX: EMA) is pleased to announce today that it has completed its bought deal offering of 6,359,500 common shares (the "Common Shares"), which includes the exercise in full over-allotment option of 829,500 Common Shares, at $31.70 per Common Share for aggregate gross proceeds to Emera of approximately $201.8 million (emphasis added by this writer) (the "Offering"). The syndicate of underwriters was led by CIBC World Markets Inc., Scotia Capital Inc., TD Securities Inc. and RBC Dominion Securities Inc., and also included BMO Nesbitt Burns Inc. and the National Bank Financial Inc.
The net proceeds of the Offering will be used for general corporate purposes, including repayment of the indebtedness under Emera's credit facility.
The Common Shares have not been registered under the U.S. Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and may not be offered or sold in the United States absent registration or an applicable exemption from the registration requirements. This media release shall not constitute an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy, nor shall there be any offer, solicitation or sale of the securities in any province, state or jurisdiction in which such an offer, solicitation or sale would be unlawful.
Forward Looking Information:
This news release contains forward looking information. Actual future results may differ materially. Additional financial and operational information is filed electronically with various securities commissions in Canada through the System for Electronic Document Analysis and Retrieval (SEDAR).
About Emera
Emera Inc. is a growing energy and services company with $6.3 billion in assets and revenues of $1.6 billion. The company invests in electricity generation transmission and distribution as well as gas transmission and utility energy services. Emera's strategy is focused on the transformation of the electricity industry to cleaner generation and the delivery of the clean energy to market. Emera operates throughout northeastern North America, in three Caribbean countries and in California. More than 80% of the company's earnings come from regulated investments. Emera shares are listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange and trade under the symbol EMA. Additional information can be accessed at www.emera.com - or - www.sedar.com"
Questions for BHE ratepayers:
(1) Who owns BHE? Emera Inc.?
(2) Why aren't/weren't any BHE debts delegated to Emera at the time BHE sold its energy generating capabilities to Emera?
(3) Since the proposed stranded cost rates will be applied to the Transmission & Delivery portion of ratepayers bills, and Transmission & Delivery is part of Emera's business - why shouldn't Emera being absorbing any outstanding BHE debts (instead of Maine ratepayers being burdened with those debts)?
Sunday, March 13, 2011
GETTING PREPARED FOR THE PUC/BANGOR HYDRO PUBLIC HEARING 3/17/2011
The following QUESTIONS should be added to the earlier list. Maybe they will generate more questions in your mind as you consider them.
1. Since the Office of the Public Advocate (OPA) will have to sign off on any Settlement that may be reached with Bangor Hydro Electric (BHE), WHO in the OPA will sign the Order to raise BHE's residential ratepayers' Transmission and Delivery rates in this Case (2010-377)? The Public Advocate Richard Davies? Someone else? How has that person(s) participated in this Case? Has he filed any Testimony, Data Requests, or responded to any data or issues raised by any other Intervenors (petitioners against the rate increases)? Has he attended and/or participated in any of the numerous Technical Conferences that have been conducted by the Maine Public Utilities Commission (MPUC) Hearing Examiner, Benjamin Smith? If not, Why Not?
2.Does the State of Maine support its pension system by investing in the companies the MPUC regulates? Specifically any of the electrical companies (EMERA, formerly BHE, or IBERDROLA, formerly CMP)? What about wind? solar? gas or other? Why is this not publically disclosed?
3. Any state employee (or teacher) has a vested interest in wanting MPERS investment assets to maintain or increase in value. The higher the rates BHE can charge its ratepayers, the higher the value on its stock/shares. Employees of the MPUC and the Maine OPA are state employees. IF MPERS holds BHE/EMERA shares, is there not a conflict of interest in their participation in BHE requests for rate increases?
4. How are EMERA/BHE board members and executives paid? Salary? Stock only? Salary and Stock?
5. How does EMERA/BHE define "customer?" (Companies that issue stock consider their "Customers" the stock holders.) Who are EMERA/BHE's "customers?" The stock holders or the ratepayers?
6. When EMERA bought BHE, how many shares of BHE stock were outstanding? Were the shares converted to EMERA stock? How many BHE/EMERA shares are now outstanding? In what name are the stock dividends issued and/or paid - BHE or EMERA?
7. How can BHE continue to issue stock shares after the buyout of EMERA of Canada?
8. EMERA Corporation of Canada is governed by Canadian law and regulation. They are not governed by the United States Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and/or State of Maine utilities' statutes. In the current case, Why is the MPUC using a Maine statute and FERC Rules to falsely justify rate settings to collect Stranded Costs from a Canadian Corporation, EMERA, over which U.S. utility regulators have no jurisdiction?
And now for a little information:
The issue of Stranded Costs came about in the late 1990s when deregulation went into effect. United States Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Order No. 888, issued November 25, 1997, governs the calculation and collection of Stranded Costs. An excellent explanation is available in the October 1998 report published by the Congressional Budget Office, titled “Electric Utilities: Deregulation and Stranded Costs.”
Stranded Costs are defined as a company's debt or lost income. Why are Maine ratepayers being expected to pay for a Canadian Corporation's debts?
Page 9 of the above referenced report contains the following two paragraphs:
Estimates of utilities' total stranded costs nationwide have ranged from $10 billion to $500 billion, although most estimates fall between $100 billion and $200 billion. Various financial houses, government agencies, and consulting firms have produced independent estimates of stranded costs, mainly looking at individual states. Three independent estimates that look at such costs nationwide come from Moody's Investors Service, Resource Data International (RDI), and the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. They are all administrative ex ante estimates.
Those three sources give remarkably similar numbers for utilities' total exposure to stranded costs. Oak Ridge's estimate is the lowest because it nets out taxes (assuming a federal tax rate of 35 percent) if those losses are written off. The three sources also give similar estimates of stranded costs by region. All three report that utilities in New England and the West face the highest stranded costs.
Neither the Maine PUC nor Bangor Hydro want people to be raising this issue or have a court of jurisdiction (federal court) address the issue of whether or not BHE/EMERA have the right, under FERC rules, to collect Stranded Costs from Maine customers.
The Maine Public Utilities Commission will be conducting a Public Hearing on this issue. It is scheduled for Thursday, March 17 at 6pm at the Richard E. Dyke Center for Family Business at Husson College in Bangor. The Hearing Examiner was reminded that date was St. Patrick's Day. He continued to schedule the PUBLIC Hearing on that date. Could it be it was with the intention (hope) few people would attend?
The issue is Bangor Hydro Electric (BHE) Company’s attempt to raise residential stranded cost rates. BHE’s intent is to apply these rate increases to the Transmission and Delivery of ratepayers bills. Attend, Speak Up, Ask Questions.
1. Since the Office of the Public Advocate (OPA) will have to sign off on any Settlement that may be reached with Bangor Hydro Electric (BHE), WHO in the OPA will sign the Order to raise BHE's residential ratepayers' Transmission and Delivery rates in this Case (2010-377)? The Public Advocate Richard Davies? Someone else? How has that person(s) participated in this Case? Has he filed any Testimony, Data Requests, or responded to any data or issues raised by any other Intervenors (petitioners against the rate increases)? Has he attended and/or participated in any of the numerous Technical Conferences that have been conducted by the Maine Public Utilities Commission (MPUC) Hearing Examiner, Benjamin Smith? If not, Why Not?
2.Does the State of Maine support its pension system by investing in the companies the MPUC regulates? Specifically any of the electrical companies (EMERA, formerly BHE, or IBERDROLA, formerly CMP)? What about wind? solar? gas or other? Why is this not publically disclosed?
3. Any state employee (or teacher) has a vested interest in wanting MPERS investment assets to maintain or increase in value. The higher the rates BHE can charge its ratepayers, the higher the value on its stock/shares. Employees of the MPUC and the Maine OPA are state employees. IF MPERS holds BHE/EMERA shares, is there not a conflict of interest in their participation in BHE requests for rate increases?
4. How are EMERA/BHE board members and executives paid? Salary? Stock only? Salary and Stock?
5. How does EMERA/BHE define "customer?" (Companies that issue stock consider their "Customers" the stock holders.) Who are EMERA/BHE's "customers?" The stock holders or the ratepayers?
6. When EMERA bought BHE, how many shares of BHE stock were outstanding? Were the shares converted to EMERA stock? How many BHE/EMERA shares are now outstanding? In what name are the stock dividends issued and/or paid - BHE or EMERA?
7. How can BHE continue to issue stock shares after the buyout of EMERA of Canada?
8. EMERA Corporation of Canada is governed by Canadian law and regulation. They are not governed by the United States Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and/or State of Maine utilities' statutes. In the current case, Why is the MPUC using a Maine statute and FERC Rules to falsely justify rate settings to collect Stranded Costs from a Canadian Corporation, EMERA, over which U.S. utility regulators have no jurisdiction?
And now for a little information:
The issue of Stranded Costs came about in the late 1990s when deregulation went into effect. United States Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Order No. 888, issued November 25, 1997, governs the calculation and collection of Stranded Costs. An excellent explanation is available in the October 1998 report published by the Congressional Budget Office, titled “Electric Utilities: Deregulation and Stranded Costs.”
Stranded Costs are defined as a company's debt or lost income. Why are Maine ratepayers being expected to pay for a Canadian Corporation's debts?
Page 9 of the above referenced report contains the following two paragraphs:
Estimates of utilities' total stranded costs nationwide have ranged from $10 billion to $500 billion, although most estimates fall between $100 billion and $200 billion. Various financial houses, government agencies, and consulting firms have produced independent estimates of stranded costs, mainly looking at individual states. Three independent estimates that look at such costs nationwide come from Moody's Investors Service, Resource Data International (RDI), and the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. They are all administrative ex ante estimates.
Those three sources give remarkably similar numbers for utilities' total exposure to stranded costs. Oak Ridge's estimate is the lowest because it nets out taxes (assuming a federal tax rate of 35 percent) if those losses are written off. The three sources also give similar estimates of stranded costs by region. All three report that utilities in New England and the West face the highest stranded costs.
Neither the Maine PUC nor Bangor Hydro want people to be raising this issue or have a court of jurisdiction (federal court) address the issue of whether or not BHE/EMERA have the right, under FERC rules, to collect Stranded Costs from Maine customers.
The Maine Public Utilities Commission will be conducting a Public Hearing on this issue. It is scheduled for Thursday, March 17 at 6pm at the Richard E. Dyke Center for Family Business at Husson College in Bangor. The Hearing Examiner was reminded that date was St. Patrick's Day. He continued to schedule the PUBLIC Hearing on that date. Could it be it was with the intention (hope) few people would attend?
The issue is Bangor Hydro Electric (BHE) Company’s attempt to raise residential stranded cost rates. BHE’s intent is to apply these rate increases to the Transmission and Delivery of ratepayers bills. Attend, Speak Up, Ask Questions.
Thursday, March 10, 2011
QUESTIONS PEOPLE SHOULD ASK AT THE PUBLIC HEARING NEXT WEEK
The previous post today provides information on the Public Hearing scheduled next Thursday at 6pm at Husson College in Bangor re: the increased rate change Bangor Hydro is seeking.
Today there was another telephone conference between various parties to this case (2010-377). Out of these conferences much has been learned the average Maine resident (ratepayer) does not realize about their Bangor Hydro Electric bill and related charges.
For instance Did you know:
The vast majority of these rate increases are levied only on residential customers and small businesses. Large corporations have hired private attorneys who have succeeded in gaining exceptions to the typical rates.
The higher the charge to ratepayers, the higher the individual stock shares pay. The executives of EMERA, the Canadian company that owns Bangor Hydro, are paid with stock options. That means, the higher the cost to us, the ratepayers, the higher the value of compensation (salary + value of stock shares) to the executives. The higher the cost to us the ratepayers, the greater the profit margin for EMERA/Bangor Hydro.
And yet, Bangor Hydro is trying to justify part of the rate increase because the pension fund for their own employees in underfunded. So, we the ratepayers are needed to bail out Bangor Hydro's employee pension plan AND increase the stock share value AND pay for the pay raises for EMERA/Bangor Hydro executives. Do you have a problem with that? I do.
The official responsibility of the Maine taxpayer funded Office of the Public Advocate is to look out for the rights of the ratepayers - not the corporations but the people, the residents. The issue of the legality of charging ANY stranded costs to Maine ratepayers has been raised in both writing and during these telephone conferences. (See the postings of the last two days for information on the federal statute which appears to show that the MPUC should never have approved ANY stranded cost rates requested by Bangor Hydro.)
This morning, Benjamin Smith, appointed Hearing Examiner for the MPUC on this case, directly asked Agnes Gromley, Senior Legal Counsel of the OPA, if she planned to file any action re: the legal standing of the Bangor Hydro stranded cost rates based on the federal statute that has been brought to the attention of all. Ms. Gromley stated the OPA did not plan to bring any action.
This means, while the OPA knows there is a federal legal issue that challenges ANY stranded costs charged to Bangor Hydro residents, OPA does not plan to challenge what has been the MPUC's practice of allowing these charges for the last ten years. Our public advocate appears to think ripping off the residents of Maine illegally should not be questioned in court. How's that for your tax dollars?
If you are not upset by YOUR public advocate (the legal office charged with looking out for your interests) that your taxes are paying for, YOU SHOULD BE.
Maine residents need to plan to attend the Public Hearing next Thursday and ask these questions.
1. Ask if it is EMERA or Bangor Hydro that is issuing thousands of additional stock shares annually?
2. Ask how much a share was worth five years ago, three years ago, and last year.
3. Ask if the Maine state pension fund (for state workers and teachers) currently holds ANY EMERA/Bangor Hydro stock? If it does, how many shares? For how long?
If our taxes are going to go up to pay the unfunded BILLIONS in liability of THAT fund, on top of state programs being cut back to help fund the deficit, should we also have our delivery of electricity rates increased as well to help increase the value of those shares?
4. Ask why EMERA/Bangor Hydro isn't funding their employees' pension plan out of their profits?
5. Ask why the highest rate is charged to residents and small businesses and why corporations are exempted or granted a lower rate? Corporations are not living on social security that has seen NO cost-of-living increase in two years.
6. Ask why the Office of the Public Advocate is not filing a class action suit in federal court prohibiting Bangor Hydro from charging ANY stranded costs under the federal statute which only applies to American corporations.
I'll be providing more questions people should ask next Thursday at the Public Hearing. Do not assume one or two people can carry this fight alone for all of Northern and Eastern Maine. YOU have to show up, stand up and speak up. This is your state and it is your money you have to fight for.
Today there was another telephone conference between various parties to this case (2010-377). Out of these conferences much has been learned the average Maine resident (ratepayer) does not realize about their Bangor Hydro Electric bill and related charges.
For instance Did you know:
The vast majority of these rate increases are levied only on residential customers and small businesses. Large corporations have hired private attorneys who have succeeded in gaining exceptions to the typical rates.
The higher the charge to ratepayers, the higher the individual stock shares pay. The executives of EMERA, the Canadian company that owns Bangor Hydro, are paid with stock options. That means, the higher the cost to us, the ratepayers, the higher the value of compensation (salary + value of stock shares) to the executives. The higher the cost to us the ratepayers, the greater the profit margin for EMERA/Bangor Hydro.
And yet, Bangor Hydro is trying to justify part of the rate increase because the pension fund for their own employees in underfunded. So, we the ratepayers are needed to bail out Bangor Hydro's employee pension plan AND increase the stock share value AND pay for the pay raises for EMERA/Bangor Hydro executives. Do you have a problem with that? I do.
The official responsibility of the Maine taxpayer funded Office of the Public Advocate is to look out for the rights of the ratepayers - not the corporations but the people, the residents. The issue of the legality of charging ANY stranded costs to Maine ratepayers has been raised in both writing and during these telephone conferences. (See the postings of the last two days for information on the federal statute which appears to show that the MPUC should never have approved ANY stranded cost rates requested by Bangor Hydro.)
This morning, Benjamin Smith, appointed Hearing Examiner for the MPUC on this case, directly asked Agnes Gromley, Senior Legal Counsel of the OPA, if she planned to file any action re: the legal standing of the Bangor Hydro stranded cost rates based on the federal statute that has been brought to the attention of all. Ms. Gromley stated the OPA did not plan to bring any action.
This means, while the OPA knows there is a federal legal issue that challenges ANY stranded costs charged to Bangor Hydro residents, OPA does not plan to challenge what has been the MPUC's practice of allowing these charges for the last ten years. Our public advocate appears to think ripping off the residents of Maine illegally should not be questioned in court. How's that for your tax dollars?
If you are not upset by YOUR public advocate (the legal office charged with looking out for your interests) that your taxes are paying for, YOU SHOULD BE.
Maine residents need to plan to attend the Public Hearing next Thursday and ask these questions.
1. Ask if it is EMERA or Bangor Hydro that is issuing thousands of additional stock shares annually?
2. Ask how much a share was worth five years ago, three years ago, and last year.
3. Ask if the Maine state pension fund (for state workers and teachers) currently holds ANY EMERA/Bangor Hydro stock? If it does, how many shares? For how long?
If our taxes are going to go up to pay the unfunded BILLIONS in liability of THAT fund, on top of state programs being cut back to help fund the deficit, should we also have our delivery of electricity rates increased as well to help increase the value of those shares?
4. Ask why EMERA/Bangor Hydro isn't funding their employees' pension plan out of their profits?
5. Ask why the highest rate is charged to residents and small businesses and why corporations are exempted or granted a lower rate? Corporations are not living on social security that has seen NO cost-of-living increase in two years.
6. Ask why the Office of the Public Advocate is not filing a class action suit in federal court prohibiting Bangor Hydro from charging ANY stranded costs under the federal statute which only applies to American corporations.
I'll be providing more questions people should ask next Thursday at the Public Hearing. Do not assume one or two people can carry this fight alone for all of Northern and Eastern Maine. YOU have to show up, stand up and speak up. This is your state and it is your money you have to fight for.
PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULED FOR BANGOR RE: BANGOR HYDRO PROPOSED RATE INCREASE
To All,
A NEWS RELEASE was sent out Wednesday, March 9, 2011, by the Maine PUC Hearing Examiner, Benjamin Smith, to announce a PUBLIC HEARING will be conducted
THURSDAY, MARCH 17 at 6pm at the Richard E. Dyke Center for Family Business at Husson College in Bangor, Maine.
The issue (for members of the public to know speak up) is Bangor Hydro's request for a "stranded cost rate hike". This increase will be added to the "delivery and transmission" portion of your Bangor Hydro bill - not the cost per kilowatt portion.
The rate increase was intended to become effective March 1, 2011. However, because various individuals (and groups) have protested the legality of ANY stranded cost increases under federal law, and the negative impact any utility rate increase will have on Maine residents and businesses, those of us protesting are unwilling to sign any settlement before (1) Public Hearings are conducted and (2) a court of appropriate jurisdiction rules on the legality of stranded costs being charged to state residents when the utility company is owned by a non-United States company. EMERA, which owns Bangor Hydro, is a Canadian company. The federal statute being cited by Bangor Hydro as justification for charging stranded costs only applies to U.S. owned companies.
This writer has fought for Public Hearings to be held in Bangor (instead of the behind-the-scenes-telephone-conferences which have been going on ---the normal
procedure for the PUC).
I URGE YOU TO forward this information to all of your friends in Northern and Eastern Maine (Bangor Hydro customers). Please ATTEND THIS MEETING AND SPEAK UP. We need to pack that room!
It is time to speak up and object to the standard rate increases that Bangor Hydro has been granted every year since the company was sold to EMERA.
If you want to review the entire (public) documents and filings for this case, go to the Public Utilities Commission's website (www.maine.gov/mpuc) and access the Virtual Case File. Enter docket number 2010-377 in the Case ID field to retrieve available documents. Be advised, you will NOT be able to read any of the Confidential data or discussions that have been going on in recent weeks.
You can also send letters to the Commission (referencing Docket Number 2010-377), attention Administrative Director, Karen Geraghty - 18 State House Station, Augusta, ME 04333-0018.
Be aware, one of Bangor Hydro's original justifications for the rate hike was their unfunded liability for Bangor Hydro employees.
Just how many corporate responsibilities are we, the taxpayers, supposed to carry on our backs? This lack of corporate responsibility needs to stop somewhere. Time for Mainers to stand up and say "ENOUGH."
For more information on this issue, read previous postings on this blog. For more information re: the Federal Statute in question, yesterday's posting has some information.
Thank you
A NEWS RELEASE was sent out Wednesday, March 9, 2011, by the Maine PUC Hearing Examiner, Benjamin Smith, to announce a PUBLIC HEARING will be conducted
THURSDAY, MARCH 17 at 6pm at the Richard E. Dyke Center for Family Business at Husson College in Bangor, Maine.
The issue (for members of the public to know speak up) is Bangor Hydro's request for a "stranded cost rate hike". This increase will be added to the "delivery and transmission" portion of your Bangor Hydro bill - not the cost per kilowatt portion.
The rate increase was intended to become effective March 1, 2011. However, because various individuals (and groups) have protested the legality of ANY stranded cost increases under federal law, and the negative impact any utility rate increase will have on Maine residents and businesses, those of us protesting are unwilling to sign any settlement before (1) Public Hearings are conducted and (2) a court of appropriate jurisdiction rules on the legality of stranded costs being charged to state residents when the utility company is owned by a non-United States company. EMERA, which owns Bangor Hydro, is a Canadian company. The federal statute being cited by Bangor Hydro as justification for charging stranded costs only applies to U.S. owned companies.
This writer has fought for Public Hearings to be held in Bangor (instead of the behind-the-scenes-telephone-conferences which have been going on ---the normal
procedure for the PUC).
I URGE YOU TO forward this information to all of your friends in Northern and Eastern Maine (Bangor Hydro customers). Please ATTEND THIS MEETING AND SPEAK UP. We need to pack that room!
It is time to speak up and object to the standard rate increases that Bangor Hydro has been granted every year since the company was sold to EMERA.
If you want to review the entire (public) documents and filings for this case, go to the Public Utilities Commission's website (www.maine.gov/mpuc) and access the Virtual Case File. Enter docket number 2010-377 in the Case ID field to retrieve available documents. Be advised, you will NOT be able to read any of the Confidential data or discussions that have been going on in recent weeks.
You can also send letters to the Commission (referencing Docket Number 2010-377), attention Administrative Director, Karen Geraghty - 18 State House Station, Augusta, ME 04333-0018.
Be aware, one of Bangor Hydro's original justifications for the rate hike was their unfunded liability for Bangor Hydro employees.
Just how many corporate responsibilities are we, the taxpayers, supposed to carry on our backs? This lack of corporate responsibility needs to stop somewhere. Time for Mainers to stand up and say "ENOUGH."
For more information on this issue, read previous postings on this blog. For more information re: the Federal Statute in question, yesterday's posting has some information.
Thank you
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
THE UNDERLYING (AND UNADDRESSED) ISSUE BEHIND THE BANGOR HYDRO PROPOSED RATE INCREASE
What follows is a copy of a faxed communication sent to the Maine Public Utilities Commission (MPUC) challenging the legal authority of both Bangor Hydro Electric (BHE) and the MPUC to issue any Stranded Cost rate increases to be paid by Maine ratepayers (residents and businesses in Maine). These Stranded Cost rate increases have been granted by the MPUC ever since the BHE hydro generating powers (and BHE) were sold to EMERA, a Canadian corporation, ten years ago.
***
STATE OF MAINE
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
BANGOR HYDRO-ELECTRIC COMPANY
Investigation into Bangor Hydro's
Stranded Cost Revenue Requirement and Rates
Docket No. 2010-377
MARCH 7, 2011
INTERVENOR
RESPONSE
BHE was purchased outright by Canadian Company, Emera Corp. almost ten years ago. Therefore, it is a pretty fiction to pretend that Bangor Hydro Electric ratepayers can be forced to pay Stranded Costs under USA FERC RULES and State of Maine Statute.
Instead Canadian rules and statutes apply. (refer to Intervenor's exhibits faxed to PUC & N. Healy 3-6-11)
(History:) After USA nationwide deregulation, it is estimated that $200 Billion of Stranded Costs were owed by United States' utilities companies. In order to prevent a massive transfer of wealth from shareholders to consumers, the US utilities' industry was given Federal Regulatory Commission permission to shift their bad debts onto US ratepayers. State statutes were then promulgated to enforce this.
But this is cold comfort for BHE because they were sold. They are NOT an American company. They are EMERA. Emera is a corporation of Canada. Emera is responsible for BHE's bad debts ever since the buyout. (Meaning: EMERA should have become responsible for any BHE debts at that point.) BHE cannot lawfully continue to issue more shares and deny to its State of Maine ratepayers all the protections and benefits that all the other Emera electricity ratepayers enjoy. (The) Stranded Cost rate setting in (case) 2010-377 before Maine PUC is (therefore)illegal.
Therefore, I oppose the net 1% rate decrease in 2010-377. I am writing in Response to the telephone call from Bangor Hydro Electric Company's attorney, Nora Healy, that I received on Friday night, March 4, 2011. In it she mentioned the net one per cent figure. A 14% rate decrease granted to other Emera ratepayers would be more appropriate at this time.
(Signed) Helen Patterson
33 Henderson St, Brownville, ME 04414
***
Why is this important to Maine ratepayers?
If the federal statute applies, ALL of the BHE Stranded Cost rate increases, which the MPUC has approved these past several years, may well be illegal. It would mean the ratepayers have been overcharged for delivery and transmission of electrical power.
If that is the case, Maine ratepayers are owed significant refunds and both BHE and the MPUC are in trouble.
Why has the Office of the Public Advocate (OPA) stayed silent on this issue when it has been raised in this case? The OPA is charged with being an advocate for the people's interest.
It has been proposed that the State of Maine's pension fund holds a significant number of BHE shares (and BHE issues thousands of additional shares annually). If BHE/EMERA had to refund the ratepayers the millions of dollars it has collected these last ten years in Stranded Cost rates, what would that do to the already indebted pension fund for state employees and teachers?
On the other hand, IF the state pension fund does hold BHE/EMERA stock-shares, could that be the reason why the OPA is not arguing the issue of illegal collection of Stranded Cost rates?
Would that not be a Conflict of Interest?
Would it not continue to be a Conflict of Interest if the case were taken to the office of the Maine Attorney General?
IF the federal statute referenced in Ms. Patterson's statement applies to BHE/EMERA, the only course for Maine ratepayers may be to file a complaint on behalf of the ratepayes with the Federal Appeals Court.
This case will be coming to some kind of a head at a PUBLIC HEARING in Bangor soon and BHE ratepayers from throughout the region should plan to attend and speak up. The time, date and place will be posted here so keep reading.
Something to Consider: If responsible people had spoken up four and five years ago, Wall Street Bankers and Investment firms would have been stopped in their tracks before they drove this country to its knees three years ago. Maine's financial recovery cannot happen while the price of delivering purchased energy continues to break the backs of both residents and businesses trying to live and survive in this state. Nor should Maine's people be forced to serve as pack animals to carry the burden of mismanagement and self-serving organizations whose licenses-to-operate require they serve the public good.
Maine people used to be known for their backbone and independence. Time to find it. Act like sheep - be treated like sheep. Speak up - or be silenced.
***
STATE OF MAINE
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
BANGOR HYDRO-ELECTRIC COMPANY
Investigation into Bangor Hydro's
Stranded Cost Revenue Requirement and Rates
Docket No. 2010-377
MARCH 7, 2011
INTERVENOR
RESPONSE
BHE was purchased outright by Canadian Company, Emera Corp. almost ten years ago. Therefore, it is a pretty fiction to pretend that Bangor Hydro Electric ratepayers can be forced to pay Stranded Costs under USA FERC RULES and State of Maine Statute.
Instead Canadian rules and statutes apply. (refer to Intervenor's exhibits faxed to PUC & N. Healy 3-6-11)
(History:) After USA nationwide deregulation, it is estimated that $200 Billion of Stranded Costs were owed by United States' utilities companies. In order to prevent a massive transfer of wealth from shareholders to consumers, the US utilities' industry was given Federal Regulatory Commission permission to shift their bad debts onto US ratepayers. State statutes were then promulgated to enforce this.
But this is cold comfort for BHE because they were sold. They are NOT an American company. They are EMERA. Emera is a corporation of Canada. Emera is responsible for BHE's bad debts ever since the buyout. (Meaning: EMERA should have become responsible for any BHE debts at that point.) BHE cannot lawfully continue to issue more shares and deny to its State of Maine ratepayers all the protections and benefits that all the other Emera electricity ratepayers enjoy. (The) Stranded Cost rate setting in (case) 2010-377 before Maine PUC is (therefore)illegal.
Therefore, I oppose the net 1% rate decrease in 2010-377. I am writing in Response to the telephone call from Bangor Hydro Electric Company's attorney, Nora Healy, that I received on Friday night, March 4, 2011. In it she mentioned the net one per cent figure. A 14% rate decrease granted to other Emera ratepayers would be more appropriate at this time.
(Signed) Helen Patterson
33 Henderson St, Brownville, ME 04414
***
Why is this important to Maine ratepayers?
If the federal statute applies, ALL of the BHE Stranded Cost rate increases, which the MPUC has approved these past several years, may well be illegal. It would mean the ratepayers have been overcharged for delivery and transmission of electrical power.
If that is the case, Maine ratepayers are owed significant refunds and both BHE and the MPUC are in trouble.
Why has the Office of the Public Advocate (OPA) stayed silent on this issue when it has been raised in this case? The OPA is charged with being an advocate for the people's interest.
It has been proposed that the State of Maine's pension fund holds a significant number of BHE shares (and BHE issues thousands of additional shares annually). If BHE/EMERA had to refund the ratepayers the millions of dollars it has collected these last ten years in Stranded Cost rates, what would that do to the already indebted pension fund for state employees and teachers?
On the other hand, IF the state pension fund does hold BHE/EMERA stock-shares, could that be the reason why the OPA is not arguing the issue of illegal collection of Stranded Cost rates?
Would that not be a Conflict of Interest?
Would it not continue to be a Conflict of Interest if the case were taken to the office of the Maine Attorney General?
IF the federal statute referenced in Ms. Patterson's statement applies to BHE/EMERA, the only course for Maine ratepayers may be to file a complaint on behalf of the ratepayes with the Federal Appeals Court.
This case will be coming to some kind of a head at a PUBLIC HEARING in Bangor soon and BHE ratepayers from throughout the region should plan to attend and speak up. The time, date and place will be posted here so keep reading.
Something to Consider: If responsible people had spoken up four and five years ago, Wall Street Bankers and Investment firms would have been stopped in their tracks before they drove this country to its knees three years ago. Maine's financial recovery cannot happen while the price of delivering purchased energy continues to break the backs of both residents and businesses trying to live and survive in this state. Nor should Maine's people be forced to serve as pack animals to carry the burden of mismanagement and self-serving organizations whose licenses-to-operate require they serve the public good.
Maine people used to be known for their backbone and independence. Time to find it. Act like sheep - be treated like sheep. Speak up - or be silenced.
Monday, March 7, 2011
THE LATEST REVOLUTION - RIGHT HERE IN MAINE
In the mailbag this morning:
"2010-305 is a CMP Stranded Cost Case run by Ben Smith simultaneous to 2010-377, the case dealing with Bangor Hydro Electric's proposed rate increase that several residents and the Maine Office of the Public Advocate are challenging.
The procedures (for the CMP case referenced above) are exactly the same as in 2010-377, the case against BHE proposed rate hike, - telephone conferences, hasty premature agreements to Stipulations, you name it. They're doing it all the same. It's weird!"
The Governor will have the opportunity to appoint a new Commissioner after April 1 when one of the seats becomes vacant. Hopefully, the new Commissioner will take a strong stand for business in Maine which means at least preventing any increase in utility rates. Better yet - reduce them. When the Governor said in his Inaugural Address that it was time to put people before politics, we can only hope he also meant putting survival before greed.
Some of the Intervenors in the Bangor Hydro case, of which this writer is one, have already notified the Commission (via the appointed and taxpayer paid Hearing Examiner, Ben Smith) they will not agree to the current stipulated settlement on the table. We want this case to go before the full board of Commissioners. It is unlikely the case could be conducted until after April 1, 2011.
We want to give the ratepayers a chance to be heard. That includes year-round residents who may be living on fixed incomes (while Social Security does not recognize the "inflated cost of living" we experience here in Maine).
It also includes businesses like Lemforder who closed up shop in Brewer after five years because they were paying 5 cents/kilowatt doing business in Virginia but 16 cents/kilowatt in Brewer,ME (Bangor Hydro Electric rates).
If the Governor wants to turn the business environment around in this state, he must resolve the ever-increasing costs of electricity and power. That begins with BHE and CMP and the position that has become entrenched at the MPUC - that annual rate hikes are acceptable.
One Intervenor believes "The reason for making the ratepayers pay utilities bad debts is $200 billion in stranded costs are left over from nationwide deregulation. It would be a massive transfer of wealth from shareholders to consumers if the utilities (companies) were forced to pay their own bad debts." Just TARP all over again. Didn't we learn that wasn't such a great idea?
She has a point if one looks at some of the "justification" points BHE used initially for the proposed rate hike currently under review.
For instance: Why should Maine ratepayers be responsible for the "unfunded pension liability of BHE employees"?
A question all Maine voters should be addressing to their state representatives and senators: Did the Maine Legislature REQUIRE BHE to sell off their generating power sources back in 2000? (That is a gem of information one of the BHE attorneys stated to this writer in a recent telephone call. Supposedly the rationale was that a free market would reduce utility rates.) Or could the "gem" have been to transfer my irritation at BHE's greed? All I have seen is rates for "delivery" of my kilowatt usage go UP year after year until they now exceed the cost of the kilowatts used.
Write to Governor LePage and URGE him to appoint a new PUC Commissioner who will be an advocate for the people and businesses of Maine. http://www.lepage2010.com
As to BHE's rush for a settlement, knowing that many of the Intervenors' issues have not been resolved, perhaps it is because BHE does not want this case to go to trial before the full Board of Commissioners. With the current environment and political administration, there might be some justice for Maine's people and businesses if all this information was exposed under the bright light of public scrutiny.
"2010-305 is a CMP Stranded Cost Case run by Ben Smith simultaneous to 2010-377, the case dealing with Bangor Hydro Electric's proposed rate increase that several residents and the Maine Office of the Public Advocate are challenging.
The procedures (for the CMP case referenced above) are exactly the same as in 2010-377, the case against BHE proposed rate hike, - telephone conferences, hasty premature agreements to Stipulations, you name it. They're doing it all the same. It's weird!"
The Governor will have the opportunity to appoint a new Commissioner after April 1 when one of the seats becomes vacant. Hopefully, the new Commissioner will take a strong stand for business in Maine which means at least preventing any increase in utility rates. Better yet - reduce them. When the Governor said in his Inaugural Address that it was time to put people before politics, we can only hope he also meant putting survival before greed.
Some of the Intervenors in the Bangor Hydro case, of which this writer is one, have already notified the Commission (via the appointed and taxpayer paid Hearing Examiner, Ben Smith) they will not agree to the current stipulated settlement on the table. We want this case to go before the full board of Commissioners. It is unlikely the case could be conducted until after April 1, 2011.
We want to give the ratepayers a chance to be heard. That includes year-round residents who may be living on fixed incomes (while Social Security does not recognize the "inflated cost of living" we experience here in Maine).
It also includes businesses like Lemforder who closed up shop in Brewer after five years because they were paying 5 cents/kilowatt doing business in Virginia but 16 cents/kilowatt in Brewer,ME (Bangor Hydro Electric rates).
If the Governor wants to turn the business environment around in this state, he must resolve the ever-increasing costs of electricity and power. That begins with BHE and CMP and the position that has become entrenched at the MPUC - that annual rate hikes are acceptable.
One Intervenor believes "The reason for making the ratepayers pay utilities bad debts is $200 billion in stranded costs are left over from nationwide deregulation. It would be a massive transfer of wealth from shareholders to consumers if the utilities (companies) were forced to pay their own bad debts." Just TARP all over again. Didn't we learn that wasn't such a great idea?
She has a point if one looks at some of the "justification" points BHE used initially for the proposed rate hike currently under review.
For instance: Why should Maine ratepayers be responsible for the "unfunded pension liability of BHE employees"?
A question all Maine voters should be addressing to their state representatives and senators: Did the Maine Legislature REQUIRE BHE to sell off their generating power sources back in 2000? (That is a gem of information one of the BHE attorneys stated to this writer in a recent telephone call. Supposedly the rationale was that a free market would reduce utility rates.) Or could the "gem" have been to transfer my irritation at BHE's greed? All I have seen is rates for "delivery" of my kilowatt usage go UP year after year until they now exceed the cost of the kilowatts used.
Write to Governor LePage and URGE him to appoint a new PUC Commissioner who will be an advocate for the people and businesses of Maine. http://www.lepage2010.com
As to BHE's rush for a settlement, knowing that many of the Intervenors' issues have not been resolved, perhaps it is because BHE does not want this case to go to trial before the full Board of Commissioners. With the current environment and political administration, there might be some justice for Maine's people and businesses if all this information was exposed under the bright light of public scrutiny.
Sunday, March 6, 2011
THIS WEEK'S PUBLIC HEARING - PROPOSED 2011-2012 TOWN BUDGET
The Public Hearing will begin at 6pm at the Eddington Town Office according to the sign in front of the Town Office. The second/follow-up Public Hearing will be conducted March 15 and will also commence at 6pm. Anyone planning to attend the Town Meeting, where the budget will be voted on, should attend at least one of these Public Hearings - both is better.
PROTECTIONS PROVIDED IN PROPOSED WIND ORDINANCE
The Eddington Planning Board's proposed Wind Energy Facility Ordinance, which will be voted on (Accept or Reject - maybe with amendments should any be introduced at the Annual Town Meeting) does contain some "protection" against abandoned non-functioning wind towers, should any company ever meet the strict/conservative requirements within the bill.
Individuals planning on voting on the issue should obtain a copy of the proposed ordinance before the March 22 Town Meeting. The "protection" is within Section 105.14 "Decommissioning and Site Restoration Plan and Requirements."
Individuals planning on voting on the issue should obtain a copy of the proposed ordinance before the March 22 Town Meeting. The "protection" is within Section 105.14 "Decommissioning and Site Restoration Plan and Requirements."
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
PUBLIC HEARINGS IN PREPARATION FOR UPCOMING TOWN MEETING - 2011/2012 TOWN BUDGET
There will be two Public Hearings at the Town Office, March 8 and 15, during which the Town Manager and Board of Selectmen will be going over the proposed 2011-2012 Town Budget.
Based on this writer's previous experiences, it's a good idea for voters to attend BOTH Public Hearings. Frequently, issues are raised at the first meeting that need to be corrected or "fixed." Depending on whether or not the materials for the Town Meeting have already gone out for printing at the time of the Public Hearing, those corrections may not show up in the Town Meeting documents. Unless the voters actually know about the errors or corrections needed, they may not point them out and require the changes before voting.
The same issues need to be addressed at the second Public Hearing because there may be people in attendance who were not at the first Public Hearing - for the same reasons.
The Public Hearings are the ONLY opportunity to hear the explanations and understand the proposed budget and individual line items in the different sections. This is particularly important because the format used at the Public Hearing is not the same as the one used for the Town Meeting when the voting takes place. And there is no explanation and discussion provided at the Town Meeting UNLESS THE PEOPLE INSIST on them.
This is why voters should like to take their "crib notes" from the Public Hearing to the Town Meeting. Town Meeting is all about how YOUR tax money is going to be spent, people.
AS A SIDE NOTE: It would be wonderful if the candidates for the School Board were in attendance at both Public Hearings - even more so if they were given the opportunity AT THE BEGINNING OF THE MEETING (because no one sticks around for the last five minutes) to introduce themselves and give a brief presentation. Of course people may need to really push the idea on the Selectmen (and the Chair in particular) to do this. But it will be the ONLY OPPORTUNITY for the largest number of people (the only gathering of people inclined to vote) to "meet the candidates."
What harm can a little civic responsibility do where so few actually turn out and vote in a local election? The vote at the Town Meeting and the vote to accept (or reject) the school budget are the ONLY TWO VOTES where town residents directly decide where their tax money is going to be spent and how much tax money is going to be collected.
You can turn out to vote for the President of the United States but how much direct impact do you really have on what that person does? Minute. Your vote for your local town budget and school district budget is as close as you will ever have in making a real tax/fiscal difference.
Think about it. Become informed on the issues and costs. Then - VOTE.
Based on this writer's previous experiences, it's a good idea for voters to attend BOTH Public Hearings. Frequently, issues are raised at the first meeting that need to be corrected or "fixed." Depending on whether or not the materials for the Town Meeting have already gone out for printing at the time of the Public Hearing, those corrections may not show up in the Town Meeting documents. Unless the voters actually know about the errors or corrections needed, they may not point them out and require the changes before voting.
The same issues need to be addressed at the second Public Hearing because there may be people in attendance who were not at the first Public Hearing - for the same reasons.
The Public Hearings are the ONLY opportunity to hear the explanations and understand the proposed budget and individual line items in the different sections. This is particularly important because the format used at the Public Hearing is not the same as the one used for the Town Meeting when the voting takes place. And there is no explanation and discussion provided at the Town Meeting UNLESS THE PEOPLE INSIST on them.
This is why voters should like to take their "crib notes" from the Public Hearing to the Town Meeting. Town Meeting is all about how YOUR tax money is going to be spent, people.
AS A SIDE NOTE: It would be wonderful if the candidates for the School Board were in attendance at both Public Hearings - even more so if they were given the opportunity AT THE BEGINNING OF THE MEETING (because no one sticks around for the last five minutes) to introduce themselves and give a brief presentation. Of course people may need to really push the idea on the Selectmen (and the Chair in particular) to do this. But it will be the ONLY OPPORTUNITY for the largest number of people (the only gathering of people inclined to vote) to "meet the candidates."
What harm can a little civic responsibility do where so few actually turn out and vote in a local election? The vote at the Town Meeting and the vote to accept (or reject) the school budget are the ONLY TWO VOTES where town residents directly decide where their tax money is going to be spent and how much tax money is going to be collected.
You can turn out to vote for the President of the United States but how much direct impact do you really have on what that person does? Minute. Your vote for your local town budget and school district budget is as close as you will ever have in making a real tax/fiscal difference.
Think about it. Become informed on the issues and costs. Then - VOTE.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
