YOUR LAUGHS FOR SEVERAL DAYS - COURTESY OF THE SOUTH CAROLINE STATE TROOPERS

Just so you will know, these lines have already been used. If you are stopped by any law enforcement officer, you need to have something better than what these officers were responding to:

These are reported to be actual comments made by South Carolina Troopers that were taken off their car videos:

1. "You know, stop lights don't come any redder than the one you just went
through."

2. "Relax, the handcuffs are tight because they're new. They'll stretch
after you wear them a while."

3. "If you take your hands off the car, I'll make your birth certificate
a worthless document."

4. "If you run, you'll only go to jail tired."

5. "Can you run faster than 1200 feet per second? Because that's the speed
of the bullet that'll be chasing you!"

6. "You don't know how fast you were going? I guess that means I can
write anything I want to on the ticket, huh?"

7. "Yes, sir, you can talk to the shift supervisor, but I don't think it
will help. Oh, did I mention that I'm the shift supervisor?"

8. "Warning! You want a warning? O.K, I'm warning you not to do that again
or I'll give you another ticket."

9. "The answer to this last question will determine whether you are drunk
or not. Was Mickey Mouse a cat or a dog?"

10. "Fair? You want me to be fair? Listen, fair is a place where you go to
ride on rides, eat cotton candy and corn dogs and step in monkey poop."

11. "Yeah, we have a quota. Two more tickets and my wife gets a toaster oven."

12. "In God we trust; all others we run through NCIC." ( National Crime
Information Center )

13. "Just how big were those 'two beers' you say you had?"

14. "No sir, we don't have quotas anymore. We used to, but now we're
allowed to write as many tickets as we can."

15. "I'm glad to hear that the Chief (of Police) is a personal friend of
yours. So you know someone who can post your bail?!"

AND THE WINNER IS....
16. "You didn't think we give pretty women tickets? You're right, we don't.
Sign here, please."

THE MPUC AND THE BANGOR HYDRO ELECTRIC COMPANY

The beat goes on. Never listen to your Board of Selectmen when they tell you, with a shrug, the PUC sets the utility companies' rates, as though there is nothing you - or they - can do. Did you know there is a Maine Office of the Public Advocate who represents "the people" in the state, or that any group pf people can hire an attorney to petition the PUC against a utility company's proposed rate increase.

In fact, since the various towns and cities that pay dues to the Maine Municipal Association (with our tax money, thank you), would tell MMA that the MMA should petition the MPUC against utility rate increases, maybe those rate increases wouldn't be such a shoo-in.

But the people of Maine have been so cowed for so long, there appears to be no back-bone in the bunch.

Not that I can say much for the hired staff of that politically appointed bunch of Commissioners, either. This writer sent THREE separate emails to the rep doing all the emailing from the MPUC requesting two simply pieces of information. The physical address of the hearing scheduled for Tuesday, January 25 and a "plain English" explanation of what the formatted Schedule meant - what was expected to happen at certain times. I had a sound reason for these requests: I am an acknowledged "Petitioner" in the action objecting to the rate increase. Seemed to me I needed to know (and had a right to know) where I should be either to present my issue, or to hear the information/evidence presented by any of the other Petitioners (or Bangor Hydro).

The first three emails I sent, I was polite and only sent it to one of two parties employed by the MPUC. No response. When I sent the fourth request - to EVERYONE, which means all of the attorneys, petitioners and Bangor Hydro and MPUC alike, then (and only then) did I receive a response from the Hearing Examiner - who suggested that if I couldn't understand what was going on, perhaps I should hire an attorney!

And this is someone whose salary is paid by Maine taxpayers.

Perhaps the MPUC and the utility companies would prefer they didn't have to consider the people, the taxpayers, the rate payers, the residents - the voters. Appears they have forgotten they have separate roles.

Tuesday's hearing has two purposes: Another group of PEOPLE want to be added to the list of Petitioners. Maybe they, too, received their notifications late like some people in Bangor who only received them the week of January 10, 2011 - long after the MPUC declared petitions closed. (Of course there are no dates mentioned in the Bangor Hydro notification. It would seem that might be relevant.)

The other issue to be addressed tomorrow is that one Petitioner has requested certain information from the Bangor Hydro which Bangor Hydro does not want to provide. Seems that information is part of on on-going litigation between Bangor Hydro and another entity. (You don't suppose this rate hike is to pay for the litigation, do you?) Anyway, Bangor Hydro is requesting the MPUC provide a Protective Order which would mean they would not have to answer that question even though the Petitioner believes it is relevant to why Bangor Hydro is requesting the rate hike...

So we will see who the MPUC is going to protect - Bangor Hydro or the Maine taxpayer/residents.

Maybe these little pieces of irritation are related to why the notifications were so camouflaged in the first place - all the better to scoot past you, dear customers and taxpayers, don't you know.

Life's a bit bumpy these days. Needs to be bumpier.

UPDATE ON THE PUC HEARINGS AND NEW PEOPLE TESTIFYING RE: BANGOR HYDRO'S RATE INCREASE APPLICATION

In an email this morning, Maine Public Utilities Commission has granted four more people "interested person/non-party status." That means Ms. Heather LeClerc, Ms. Louise Mitchell, and Mr. Peter Berry, who wrote to the Commission, and Mr. James Alciere, who called and asked the Commission requesting to be added to the "service list" will be allowed to testify at the PUC hearing - in addition to Ms. Helen Patterson, this writer, Ms. Kim Pound, and the Town of Millinocket. One little catch though - these last four individuals (LeClerc, Mitchell, Berry, and Alciere) will not be provided with copies of the filings made by the Bangor Hydro in support of their rate increase. There were two. An original and an amended which somewhat reduces the amount of the increase.)

Since the email I received by the Associate Legal Secretary of the Maine PUC included the email address of Mr. Alciere, I have been able to contact him directly. If anyone reading this blog knows how to contact Ms. Leclerc, Ms. Mitchell or Mr. Berry, please advise them of the following:

I have both filings Bangor Hydro submitted to the PUC, as well as the responses the PUC has sent to me. All have been received via email with attached PDF files. I am willing to forward these documents to any of the individuals who plan to testify at the PUC hearing. All you need to do is provide your name and email or mailing address in the COMMENT section of this blog. I check it throughout the day.

I am just trying to find out where and when this blasted hearing is going to take place. The so-called schedule that was emailed by the Hearing Examiner was cryptic at best. I sent an email requesting something in plain English with more detail. So far, nothing has been provided.

I do find it interesting to see the written communication between the attorney for Bangor Hydro and the Hearing Examiner which has been on a first name basis. Not too professional, but quite friendly.

THE PUC HEARINGS RE: BANGOR HYDRO RATE INCREASE REQUEST

Apparently there is some value in writing actual letters to the PUC protesting Bangor Hydro's actions for a proposed rate increase. Not only did the PUC acknowledge this writer's letter of protest, but they have acknowledged my request to testify at a Public Hearing against the rate increase.

Since my letter was sent and received (after January 1), someone else from Eddington wrote a letter protesting the rate increase. That individual did not specifically request to testify however. So now the Bangor Hydro is asking the PUC if that person (and others who wrote "late letters") need to be heard, especially if their letters did not specifically state they wanted to testify.

To state one wants to testify (or speak) apparently is considered a "petition." Does anyone other than this writer find it interesting to learn only now the definition of "petition." I thought a Petition required the gathering of names.

The latest "notification" this writer received from the PUC/Bangor Hydro (there have been several in the last two days) has to do with whether or not these last letter-writers are going to be considered for authorization to testify, especially if they did not specifically state (in their letters) that they wanted to do so. The following is that notification:

"Bangor Hydro has no objection to the Petitions to Intervene/Requests for Interested Party status listed in the attached Procedural Order (Ms. Patterson, Ms. Gagnon, Town of Millinocket and Ms. Pound).

We did have a few questions about other people appearing on the Service List.


1. The Procedural Order did not mention James Alciere, who apparently called the PUC and asked to be added to the Service List. Should we treat Mr. Alciere as an Interested Party?

2. The Procedural Order also did not mention Heather Leclerc, Louise Mitchell and Peter Berry who all filed comments, but did not request either to Intervene or become an Interested Parties. However, they all appear on the Service List. Should we serve the people who only filed comments with our filings or not?


Your clarification would be appreciated.



Thanks,

Nora



Nora Healy

Verrill Dana, LLP

nhealy@verrilldana.com

207.253.4720 - direct phone

207.253.4721 - direct fax


NOTE: A previous "notification" which this writer received is the "Procedural Order" the PUC has written for this issue/Docket #2010-377:

"An initial deadline for the interventions was established by the December 13, 2010 Notice of Proceedings for December 20, 2010. At the initial case conference on December 21, 2010, the Hearing Examiner extended this deadline until December 27, 2010 in order to ensure that members of the public had an opportunity to intervene. The Commission has received several correspondences since the December 21, 2010 case conference and following the December 27, 2010 extended deadline for intervention. These include a petition to intervene by Ms. Helen Patterson dated December 20, 2010 (received January 3, 2011) as well as a January 1, 2011 letter from Ms. Rusty Gagnon (received January 4, 2011) seeking the "right to be heard," which is tantamount to - and should be treated as - a petition to intervene.* The Commission also received two correspondences from persons/entities seeking interested person/non-party status, including a January 5, 2011 letter from the Town of Millinocket (received on January 6, 2011) and a January 7, 2011 letter from Ms. Kim Pound (received January 10, 2011).

"Any party having an objection to the above-referenced petitions is directed to submit a filing with the Commission by the close of business, Wednesday, January 12, 2011 that states the grounds for such objections.

"Dated at Hallowell, Maine, this 11th day of January 2011

"BY ORDER OF THE HEARING EXAMINER

Benjamin J. Smith

* In her letter, Ms. Gagnon also requests that the Commission hold public hearings in the affected areas, "not just in Augusta." The Hearing Examiner reserves consideration as to the nature, time and place of any future public hearings in this proceeding until a later time, as appropriate.

Personally, I found it MOST INTERESTING to see the various December deadlines that were originally assigned by the PUC/Bangor Hydro to this issue in light of the fact that I did not even receive Bangor Hydro's notification of their intention to seek a rate increase until December 27, 2010. That is after the extended deadline to respond to the PUC. I am thankful my letter was even acknowledged.

YES, I said I wanted to testify (against the rate increase AND against the underhanded manner in which the notification was even mailed out to the recipients).

And I wrote to our newly elected State Representative and State Senator and Governor LePage. And I wrote a letter to the Bangor Daily News that was published January 5. I do not know to what effect any of this will achieve. Let's face it - Bangor Hydro is a monster entity. But I WILL testify that I believe ANY rate increase is bad for the state's economy, bad for those who are living on a fixed income, bad when people are tightening their belt so why isn't Bangor Hydro, bad when the state is trying to keep the businesses it already has and encourage new businesses to come for the state of increasing the tax base. And NONE of these interests will be well served by a rate increase by either one of the state's electrical power companies.

Whether anything I say will have any influence against the Monster power company, but at least I will stand up to them and I will say it. The question is - how many others with backbones will do the same?

LETTER FROM CONGRESSMAN MIKE MICHAUD

From today's email:

Dear Fellow Mainers,

Every two years a new Congress starts. Now, more than ever, both parties need to use this new session to work together to pass policies that will boost our economy and create jobs. We also need to focus on reducing our national debt.

But so far, this Congress’s actions are a mixed bag. On the one hand, the House voted in a bipartisan way to pass a bill to trim the budgets of members of Congress, committees and leadership offices. During these tough economic times American families are tightening their belts and Congress must do the same. The measure that passed the House is expected to save approximately $35 million. While this is a symbolic vote in many respects, I am hopeful that it leads to more serious deficit reduction efforts moving forward.

In the same week, after members of the House were sworn in, the rules that govern the way the chamber works were adopted. This vote on the rules is important because it sets the stage for how the House will conduct business day in and day out for the next two years. Unfortunately, I think we’ve gotten off to a bad start.

The rules package that was passed effectively guts “pay as you go” (PAYGO) budget rules, which led to the budget surpluses in the 1990’s and were reinstated a few years ago. PAYGO requires that spending and tax provisions be paid for through offsets in the budget elsewhere. The rules package that the new majority was successful in passing actually exempts tax policy and other major items from these rules, including an extension of the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts, a repeal of health care reform and the cost of new trade agreements.

Mainers I’ve talked to know that both tax policy and spending affect our overall debt, and they want our entire fiscal house to be put in order. We need to get serious about addressing our record deficits. But this rules package represents a huge step back that puts us on the wrong track, making it unlikely that we will be able to enact serious change.

But I’m not saying this just because I now find myself in the minority party in Congress. When Democrats sought to make these types of exemptions two years ago I opposed their rules package as well. In fact, I was one of only a few members to vote against my own party on it. But this year, especially with the American people clearly clamoring for action on the economy, our debt and a slew of other top issues, we’ve seriously stumbled right out of the gate.

But to make matters worse, the new rules package could also upend the way states receive federal transportation funding.

Federal highway funding is currently distributed to states through a formula. The funding comes from user fees and things like the gas tax, which are deposited in a trust fund and used specifically to reinvest in each states’ transportation and infrastructure priorities. In Congress, the amount of funding that states receive and the programs they have access to are revisited and adjusted every 5 or 6 years to reflect national trends and needs.

This funding approach is used for a number of important reasons, including that it provides states the ability to plan longer term infrastructure improvements that can often span a number of years. And previous House rules protected this. In fact, former Republican Congressman Bud Shuster championed a rule that prevented the funds that build up in the trust fund to be used to mask the size of the federal deficit.

Unfortunately, the rules package that passed the House changes these important rules that protect states’ highway funding, opening the process up to potential cuts and the whims of the broken, annual appropriations process. This would directly affect not only our aging infrastructure, but also the jobs that result from its updating. Despite being strongly opposed by everyone from the new Republican Chairman of the Transportation Committee to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, it made it into the final rules package that passed.

I’m disappointed that the new majority has decided to slip these major policy changes into an arcane rules package. This runs contrary to the message of open government and reform that a majority of Americans sent last fall. Despite this, it is my sincere hope that the new Congress can work together to build on our shared commitment to improving the economy while avoiding the same old Washington ways that the American people have clearly rejected.


With warmest regards,



Mike Michaud
Member of Congress

NOTE: If there are issues within this letter to which you object or applaud, write a letter or send an email to Congressman Michaud or Senator Olympia Snowe or Susan Collins. It is time for Mainers to Speak Up and Be Heard. If you, too, don't defend our country then why ask our young men and women to be prepared to sacrifice their lives for it.

WORLD-WIDE PUBLISHED AUTHOR TO APPEAR AT BANGOR BORDERS

Janet Chapmen, writer of the romance Highlander series, will appear at the Bangor Borders bookstore on Saturday, January 29th at 3pm for a reading and book signing.

Janet's books are published is several languages all over the world and her fans eagerly await each new book in her Highlander series. These stories are set in Maine. While her characters are involved in romantic relationships, certain individuals have been gifted with supernatural powers that make her stories a hit with both women and young adults.

Janet lives close by in the Bangor area and this writer has been fortunate to meet her and her husband, the one she considers the "guardian at the gate" because he protects her writing time from intrusions as mundane as people knocking at the door to the ever incessant telephone. At the same time, Janet is generous in sharing information about the writing and publishing business with other writers.

It is indeed fortunate to have Borders bookstore, the most northern bookstore in Maine, be so supportive of Maine writers. This event is indicative of that support. Hopefully it will be well attended by readers and bookstore supporters alike.

For those unaware of its location, Borders is on Stillwater Avenue in Bangor, right behind the Bangor Mall and off Hogan Road. It shares the same parking lot with Staples.

BANGOR HYDRO'S SNEAK ATTACK - AND YOU THOUGHT IT WAS JUNK MAIL

During this past week, Bangor Hydro Electric customers allegedly received a written notification via the U.S. mail. It came in a one-sided, tri-folded, piece of paper with a Presort Std U.S. Postage Paid Permit 214 out of Cedar Rapids, IA. There is no time date. There is no return address on the address side of the sealed form and none on the back side either. There is absolutely nothing indicating the "item" is an official notification from Bangor Hydro Electric, much less that it is anything other than junk mail. Who can guess how many Bangor Hydro Electric customers simply threw it into the trash unopened.

What the Notification Says:

"On or about December 7, 2010, Bangor Hydro Electric Company (Bangor Hydro) filed a stranded cost rate case with the Maine Public Utilities Commission (Commission). The filing is pursuant to the provisions of 35-A M.R.S.A. Section 307 and Chapter 120 of the Commission's rules. In its filing, Bangor Hydro requested that the Commission approve an increase in its stranded cost rates for all core customer classes to be effective March 1, 2011 through February 28, 2014. This stranded cost revenue requirement increase represents a total annual increase of approximately $5 million over annual revenues from the previous stranded cost period (March 1, 2008 through February 28, 2011), and would result in a 41.21% increase in stranded cost rates, corresponding to approximately a 4.6% increase in overall delivery rates (including stranded costs, distribution and transmission), for all of Bangor Hydro's core customers....."

The notification goes on to describe how people can contact the PUC if they wish a public hearing to be held or petition to intervene. There is absolutely NO DATE by which the people must contact the PUC.

Gee, if the Bangor Hydro really didn't want anyone to petition to intervene or request any public hearings, they couldn't have found a better way to notify anyone of what they planned to do, could they?

I have several objections to this rate hike (not to mention this underhanded way and timing of notification. It's not as though we weren't just a bit busy this last week).

First: The manner in which this "notification" was sent out is underhanded at best. It was not forthright. There was absolutely no indication it was an official notification from Bangor Hydro Electric. There was nothing on the face of the blank white paper indicating it had anything to do with an essential utility's intention to file with the PUC for a rate hike or that we citizens had any rights IF we took certain actions within a limited and specific time period.

Second: Maine's electricity costs are already reputed to be some of the highest in the country.

Third: We have a significant number of retired people living in this state who are having to do so on a fixed income. Social Security has not provided a COLA for two years. There will be none in 2011. And yet look at what the increasing costs are in Maine for heating oil, gasoline, food, - and now electricity.

Fourth: Electrical costs in Maine are already making it near impossible for existing businesses to survive, much less succeed. How can Maine attract new businesses if electricity costs are going to increase? Only by increasing the business tax base can property taxes be reduced and school district budgets be shared with the state instead of being cut - or carried primarily on the backs of home owners.

Somehow, the Legislature has got to take steps with the PUC to put an end to this type of utility hijacking. Bangor Hydro provides some of the worse preventive maintenance during the decent weather months that this writer has ever seen.

Bangor Hydro Electric bills are divided into two parts - one being the cost charges for the number of kilowatts used (how much electricity). The second is the cost for "delivering" the electricity to our homes and businesses (as though it shows up in a truck like our heating oil). The Delivery Charges are always more than the cost of the amount used. And the sum total of these costs are outrageous. No other word for it. OUTRAGEOUS!

Maybe this is because the PUC allowed Bangor Hydro to shut down the hydro dams/plant that used to operate right here in Maine. I know. I worked for Bangor Hydro when I was in high school and attended UofM/Orono. This is when their primary office was downtown in Bangor at the intersection of State and Exchange Streets.

If you think this "notification" was underhanded, if you think this rate increase is outrageous then you can do either of the following:

Contact your elected representative/senator in the Maine Legislature - or Governor-elect Paul LePage. The newly elected Representative to the House for the Eddington/Holden/Clifton/Bradley area is Dave Johnson.

His email is - DJHouse20@gmail.com

To send a message to Paul Lepage, go to www.LePage2010.com On his home page you will find a section on the right side with the heading Transition. Click on that. It will take you to a new page where you can send him a message. You will need to provide your name and other information for feedback and the verify you are a Maine resident. Tell him/his team what you think about this piracy and how it will hurt taxpayers and new businesses.

Or - you can write to the PUC's Administrative Director at Maine Public Utilities Commission, 18 State House Station, Augusta, Maine 04333-0018, with a copy to Bangor Hydro Electric Company, attn: Bradford A. Borman, P.O. Box 932, Bangor, ME 04402-0932

If you have any questions, you can call the PUC Commissioner at (207) 287-3831, or contact Bangor Hydro at (207) 945-5621.