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.