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?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment