Parts 1 and 2 can be read by scrolling down. Part 1 was posted July 18, 2011.
*****
As stated earlier, this writer received the notification of requested residential rate hikes from Bangor Hydro Electric Company (BHE) on December 30, 2010, and wrote a Letter of Objection on January 1, 2011. That letter was received by the Maine Public Utilities Commission (MPUC) on January 4, 2011. From that point on I became an Intervenor in the case.
For those who would like to read the actual letter, go to www.maine.gov/mpuc/ and click on Virtual Case File located on the right side of the page. It is a shaded area. You will be presented with a sheet filled with blank sections. Use only the section, “Case ID” and type in 2010377. Then click at the bottom of the page to proceed.
You will find the MPUC has posted 20 pages containing several listed documents per page relating to this case, with page 1 being the most recent filings. At the bottom of the page you can request any page. Each page contains approximately 10 documents listed by date filed. Page 19 contains my original letter – with attachments. One of the attachments is the Actual Notification sent out to BHE’s residential ratepayers.
It is important to note that the notification states as follows:
“If you wish to present your views on this proposed increase, you may participate in one of two ways:
“1. You may petition to intervene. If your petition is granted, you will be a party with the right to participate formally in the hearings and in negotiations. Your petition must be made in writing and must state the name and docket number of this proceeding (it became 2010-377), and the manner in which you are affected by the proceeding. Your petition must also include a short statement of the nature and extent of the participation you seek, and a statement of the nature of the evidence or argument you intend to submit. Your petition must be received by the Administrative Director, Maine Public Utilities Commission, 18 State House Station, Augusta, Maine 04333-0018 by the deadline set by the Commission for Intervention. (NOTE this last sentence. Nowhere in this notification is that date stated. Nowhere.) You must also send a copy of your petition to Bangor Hydro Electric company, attn: Bradford A. Borman, P.O. Box 932, Bangor, Maine 04402-0932.
“2. Alternatively, you may request interested person (or nonparty) status by filing a request with the Administrative Director at the above address. If your name is added to the mailing list as an interested person, you will receive notice of the time and place of any hearings, including public witness hearings, held in this case.
“You may request that the Commission hold a public hearing in this matter. If you wish to request that the Commission hold such a hearing, you must file a written request to that effect with the Administrative Director at the above address by the deadline the Commission sets. (NOTE: No deadline was set or referenced in this notification.) Persons who request a hearing will automatically be added to this mailing list as interested persons.
“You may appear as a public witness at a hearing, if one is held, and give your views on the proposed change in rates. The purpose of a public witness hearing is to give members of the public an opportunity to give their views on the matters under consideration by the Commission in this case. (NOTE: Public Hearings usually allow any member of the pubic in attendance to speak. According to this notification, the only people who would be allowed to speak [witness] would be those who have written the prescribed letters by the undefined deadline. Does this feel fixed to any readers?) Any subsequent notice of hearing and/or opportunity to intervene may be given by publication in newspapers and may thereafter be given in mail only to those customers who have petitioned for intervention, requested inclusion as an interested person (or nonparty), or requested a hearing….”
This writer’s letter of petition took issue with the following regarding the notification sent to those who would be most directly affected by the requested rate increase:
(1) the lack of BHE’s identification on the address face of the mailer,
(2) the lack of a mailing date on either the address face or the notification itself,
(3) the bulk mail stamp used which states Cedar Rapids, IA and not Maine,
(4) the appearance of the mailing being ‘junk mail’,
(5) the timing of the mailing so as to coincide with end-of-the-year mailing soliciting seniors to purchase various vendors’ Part C and Part D Medicare coverage – and – charitable donations that would qualify as income tax deductions.
This writer stated that any or all of items 1-5 would incline many recipients to throw out the notification as ‘junk mail’ and therefore never know either BHE’s intentions or the recipients’ rights to petition in opposition.
Additionally, as time passed and this writer realized that the MPUC was limiting participation of individuals who did send in letters of protest, I challenged why none of the deadlines the MPUC was referencing was included in the notification. This issue was addressed directly in a phone call to my residence by BHE’s represented attorney, Nora Healy, who told me that BHE needed to meet a deadline for filing (presumably the beginning of December 2010) and at that time the MPUC had failed to determine what the deadline(s) would be. So BHE went ahead and issued the notification without the deadlines. The MPUC never addressed my question re: this issue.
The result of the actions by BHE and the MPUC placed a burden on ratepayers who potentially could/would have filed a petition but (a) never received or opened the notification, or (b) wrote letters only to find them discounted because they missed the never defined MPUC deadline.
My January 1, 2011 letter officially requested, that “Public Hearings be held throughout the effected areas, not just in Augusta, over this issue". I also requested to be listed as an individual who would like to be heard.
In days to come I will describe how these issues raised were addressed.
Thursday, July 28, 2011
Thursday, July 21, 2011
BANGOR HYDRO ELECTRIC RATE INCREASES - PART II OF SERIES RE: CASE NO. 2010-377
Today's posting is Part II of the Series begun here on July 18, 2011. You can scroll down to review that post if you haven't read it.
The following are direct quotes from the final Order issued by the Maine Public Utilities Commission (MPUC) commissioners on June 10, 2011. This order will be in effect until the next request for residential ratepayer increases, expected to be initiated December 2013.
Following today's referenced section, issues are presented which should raise questions in the reader's mind re: transparency of both BHE and the MPUC. Those issues are related to italicized information for the purpose of focusing the reader's attention.
"PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
"
On December 8, 2010, Bangor Hydro Electric Company (BHE, Bangor, Bangor Hydro, or the Company) submitted its Petition for a Commission investigation into its stranded cost revenue requirements and rates for the three year period commencing March 1, 2011 and associated materials (December 8 Petition). As part of its initial petition, Bangor included the pre-filed Direct Testimony and Exhibits or Peter Dawes and Lisa Henaghen (Dawes/Henaghen Direct Testimony), the pre-filed direct testimony of Gradon Haehnel and Timothy Olesniewisz (Haehnel/Olesniewisz Direct Testimony) (collectively, pre-filed Direct Testimony). In its pre-filed Direct Testimony, the Company requested that the Commission authorize an increase to its stranded cost rates and approve a three-year levelized revenue requirement of $19.751 million per year for the period of March 1, 2011 through February 28, 2024. In its initial filing, the Company asserted that its proposal represented an increase of approximately $5.025 million or a 34.12% increase to its current stranded cost revenue requirements. This increase to the stranded cost component of rates represented an increase in BHE's delivery rate (transmission, distribution, and stranded costs) of 4.6%.
"The Company's December 8 Petition proposed an overall pre-tax weighted average cost of capital (WACC) of 10.37% that was based on a 8.5% return on equity (ROE) for all non-Maine Yankee related stranded cost rate base. The Company asserted that his WACC was reasonable because it was the same ROE that had been approved by the Commission in Docket No. 2066-661 and was similar, albeit somewhat more modest, than the ROE and WACC approved for Maine Public Service (MPS).
"On December 13, 2010, the Maine Office of Public Advocate submitted a petition to intervene. On December 20, 2010, Central Maine Power Company (CMP) submitted a petition for discretionary intervention. At the initial case conference on December 21, 2010, the Hearing Examiner granted these petitions, to which no objections were made. Following the case conference, the Hearing Examiner extended the deadline for interventions until December 27, 2010 (from December 13, 2010). On January 11, 2011, the Hearing Examiner granted the late filled petitions to intervene by Mr. Helen Patterson and Ms. Rusty Gagnon."
WHAT DOES THE PRECEDING INFORMATION MEAN? HOW DOES IT RELATE TO BHE RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS?
Readers will need to refer back to those italicized sections to track the following issues.
1. According to Maine law (Title 35-A and Chapters 110 and 120 of the MPUC's rules) BHE has/had the responsibility to send notices of proposed rate increases to all ratepayers. The notification which BHE mailed stated that BHE had filed its Petition with the MPUC on December 7, 2010. (not December 8, 2010)
2. The Maine Office of Public Advocate (OPA) filed their petition on December 13, 2010. This shows that the OPA received a copy/notice of BHE's December 2010 petition filing prior to December 13, 2010.
3. The Central Maine Power Company (CMP) also filed a petition to participate in this case. Their petition was filed with the MPUC on December 20, 2010. This shows that CMP had received notification of BHE's December 2010 filing prior to December 20, 2010.
4. The first case conference was conducted December 21, 2010. This shows that the Hearing Examiner was willing to begin the Commission's (requested) investigation into the issue of the requested rate increase at that time.
HOWEVER, it is obvious that either (1) there was no concern by the MPUC of when/if the ratepayer class had, in fact, received the required notification and, therefore, should be included in the proceedings from the very beginning - or - (2) there was an assumption that no one from the ratepayer class would petition to be included (in essence Object to any aspect or issue regarding the requested rate increase) - or - (3) any ratepayer who might petition could be ignored by the MPUC Hearing Examiner.
This position by the MPUC - and any such assumptions - proved to be wrong when Ms. Patterson and I filed our individual petitions in accordance with the minimal information provided in the BHE notification...which we did not receive until AFTER the initial case conference was held.
This writer did not even receive the BHE notification until December 30, 2010 - 9 days after the initial case conference, 10 days after CMP filed their petition, and 17 days after the OPA filed their petition. (Additionally, this writer knows of individuals residing in Bangor who did not receive their BHE notification until the middle of January, 2011!)
Question: Are policies, laws and/or rules pertaining to the public/ratepayer rights and protections intended to be "real" or are they just figment regulations for corporations - not worth the paper they're printed on?
Tomorrow: The issue raised by this writer/ratepayer and petitioned to the MPUC.
The following are direct quotes from the final Order issued by the Maine Public Utilities Commission (MPUC) commissioners on June 10, 2011. This order will be in effect until the next request for residential ratepayer increases, expected to be initiated December 2013.
Following today's referenced section, issues are presented which should raise questions in the reader's mind re: transparency of both BHE and the MPUC. Those issues are related to italicized information for the purpose of focusing the reader's attention.
"PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
"
On December 8, 2010, Bangor Hydro Electric Company (BHE, Bangor, Bangor Hydro, or the Company) submitted its Petition for a Commission investigation into its stranded cost revenue requirements and rates for the three year period commencing March 1, 2011 and associated materials (December 8 Petition). As part of its initial petition, Bangor included the pre-filed Direct Testimony and Exhibits or Peter Dawes and Lisa Henaghen (Dawes/Henaghen Direct Testimony), the pre-filed direct testimony of Gradon Haehnel and Timothy Olesniewisz (Haehnel/Olesniewisz Direct Testimony) (collectively, pre-filed Direct Testimony). In its pre-filed Direct Testimony, the Company requested that the Commission authorize an increase to its stranded cost rates and approve a three-year levelized revenue requirement of $19.751 million per year for the period of March 1, 2011 through February 28, 2024. In its initial filing, the Company asserted that its proposal represented an increase of approximately $5.025 million or a 34.12% increase to its current stranded cost revenue requirements. This increase to the stranded cost component of rates represented an increase in BHE's delivery rate (transmission, distribution, and stranded costs) of 4.6%.
"The Company's December 8 Petition proposed an overall pre-tax weighted average cost of capital (WACC) of 10.37% that was based on a 8.5% return on equity (ROE) for all non-Maine Yankee related stranded cost rate base. The Company asserted that his WACC was reasonable because it was the same ROE that had been approved by the Commission in Docket No. 2066-661 and was similar, albeit somewhat more modest, than the ROE and WACC approved for Maine Public Service (MPS).
"On December 13, 2010, the Maine Office of Public Advocate submitted a petition to intervene. On December 20, 2010, Central Maine Power Company (CMP) submitted a petition for discretionary intervention. At the initial case conference on December 21, 2010, the Hearing Examiner granted these petitions, to which no objections were made. Following the case conference, the Hearing Examiner extended the deadline for interventions until December 27, 2010 (from December 13, 2010). On January 11, 2011, the Hearing Examiner granted the late filled petitions to intervene by Mr. Helen Patterson and Ms. Rusty Gagnon."
WHAT DOES THE PRECEDING INFORMATION MEAN? HOW DOES IT RELATE TO BHE RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS?
Readers will need to refer back to those italicized sections to track the following issues.
1. According to Maine law (Title 35-A and Chapters 110 and 120 of the MPUC's rules) BHE has/had the responsibility to send notices of proposed rate increases to all ratepayers. The notification which BHE mailed stated that BHE had filed its Petition with the MPUC on December 7, 2010. (not December 8, 2010)
2. The Maine Office of Public Advocate (OPA) filed their petition on December 13, 2010. This shows that the OPA received a copy/notice of BHE's December 2010 petition filing prior to December 13, 2010.
3. The Central Maine Power Company (CMP) also filed a petition to participate in this case. Their petition was filed with the MPUC on December 20, 2010. This shows that CMP had received notification of BHE's December 2010 filing prior to December 20, 2010.
4. The first case conference was conducted December 21, 2010. This shows that the Hearing Examiner was willing to begin the Commission's (requested) investigation into the issue of the requested rate increase at that time.
HOWEVER, it is obvious that either (1) there was no concern by the MPUC of when/if the ratepayer class had, in fact, received the required notification and, therefore, should be included in the proceedings from the very beginning - or - (2) there was an assumption that no one from the ratepayer class would petition to be included (in essence Object to any aspect or issue regarding the requested rate increase) - or - (3) any ratepayer who might petition could be ignored by the MPUC Hearing Examiner.
This position by the MPUC - and any such assumptions - proved to be wrong when Ms. Patterson and I filed our individual petitions in accordance with the minimal information provided in the BHE notification...which we did not receive until AFTER the initial case conference was held.
This writer did not even receive the BHE notification until December 30, 2010 - 9 days after the initial case conference, 10 days after CMP filed their petition, and 17 days after the OPA filed their petition. (Additionally, this writer knows of individuals residing in Bangor who did not receive their BHE notification until the middle of January, 2011!)
Question: Are policies, laws and/or rules pertaining to the public/ratepayer rights and protections intended to be "real" or are they just figment regulations for corporations - not worth the paper they're printed on?
Tomorrow: The issue raised by this writer/ratepayer and petitioned to the MPUC.
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
IS SOCIAL SECURITY AN "ENTITLEMENT"?
From today's email mailbag -
"Entitlement???" What the hell is wrong here?
Remember, not only did you contribute to Social Security but your employer did too. It totaled 15% of your income before taxes. If you averaged only 30K over your working life, that’s close to $220,500. If you calculate the future value of $4,500 per year (yours & your employer’s contribution) at a simple 5% (less than what the govt. pays on the money that it borrows), after 49 years of working (me) you'd have $892,919.98.If you took out only 3% per year, you'd receive $26,787.60 per year and it would last better than 30 years, and that’s with no interest paid on that final amount on deposit! If you bought an annuity and it paid 4% per year, you'd have a lifetime income of $2,976.40 per month. The folks in Washington have pulled off a bigger Ponzi scheme than Bernie Madoff ever had.
Entitlement my ass, I paid cash for my social security insurance!!!! Just because they borrowed the money, doesn't make my benefits some kind of charity or handout!! Congressional benefits, aka. free health care, outrageous retirement packages, 67 paid holidays, three weeks paid vacation, unlimited paid sick days, now that's welfare. And they have the nerve to call my retirement entitlements !!!!!!.....scroll down..............
Emergency Rooms for their general health care at just one hospital the taxpayer cost totaled over $25 million a year!!!
Someone please tell me what the HELL's wrong with all the people that run this country!!!!!!
We're "broke" & can't help our own Seniors, Veterans, Orphans, the Homeless, families who've lost their homes because of Wall Street banks who pulled a fast one or who've lost their jobs because of corporate "outsourcing", etc., etc.,???????????
In the last months we have provided aid to Haiti, Chile, and Turkey. And now Pakistan - the home of bin Laden and inept border security. Literally, BILLIONS of DOLLARS!!!
Our retired seniors living on a 'fixed income'receive no aid nor do they get any breaks while our government and religious organizations pour Hundreds of Billions of $$$$$$'S and Tons of Food into Foreign Countries!
They call Social Security and Medicare an entitlement, even though most of us have been paying for it all our working lives and now when its time for us to collect, the government is running out of money. Why did the government borrow from it in the first place? For "bridges to nowhere" and pet projects at home to buy votes?
We have hundreds of adoptable children who are shoved aside to make room for the adoption of foreign orphans.
AMERICA: a country where we have homeless citizens without shelter, children going to bed hungry, elderly going without 'needed' meds, and mentally ill without treatment -etc., etc.
YET......................
They have a 'Benefit' for the people of Haiti on 12 TV stations, ships and
planes lining up with food, water, tents, clothes, bedding, doctors and medical
supplies.
Imagine if the *GOVERNMENT* gave 'US' the same support they give to other countries.
SAD? YEAH. OK, SO WHEN DO WE DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT?????
A suggestion: Make a copy of this. Print it out. And mail it to your U.S. Senators and Congressmen & women. Write a personal note at the bottom and tell them to do the job WE sent them to do and are paying them to do. Watch who responds. Who gets the job done. Those who don't? Vote them out ASAP
From today's email mailbag -
"Entitlement???" What the hell is wrong here?
Remember, not only did you contribute to Social Security but your employer did too. It totaled 15% of your income before taxes. If you averaged only 30K over your working life, that’s close to $220,500. If you calculate the future value of $4,500 per year (yours & your employer’s contribution) at a simple 5% (less than what the govt. pays on the money that it borrows), after 49 years of working (me) you'd have $892,919.98.If you took out only 3% per year, you'd receive $26,787.60 per year and it would last better than 30 years, and that’s with no interest paid on that final amount on deposit! If you bought an annuity and it paid 4% per year, you'd have a lifetime income of $2,976.40 per month. The folks in Washington have pulled off a bigger Ponzi scheme than Bernie Madoff ever had.
Entitlement my ass, I paid cash for my social security insurance!!!! Just because they borrowed the money, doesn't make my benefits some kind of charity or handout!! Congressional benefits, aka. free health care, outrageous retirement packages, 67 paid holidays, three weeks paid vacation, unlimited paid sick days, now that's welfare. And they have the nerve to call my retirement entitlements !!!!!!.....scroll down..............
Emergency Rooms for their general health care at just one hospital the taxpayer cost totaled over $25 million a year!!!
Someone please tell me what the HELL's wrong with all the people that run this country!!!!!!
We're "broke" & can't help our own Seniors, Veterans, Orphans, the Homeless, families who've lost their homes because of Wall Street banks who pulled a fast one or who've lost their jobs because of corporate "outsourcing", etc., etc.,???????????
In the last months we have provided aid to Haiti, Chile, and Turkey. And now Pakistan - the home of bin Laden and inept border security. Literally, BILLIONS of DOLLARS!!!
Our retired seniors living on a 'fixed income'receive no aid nor do they get any breaks while our government and religious organizations pour Hundreds of Billions of $$$$$$'S and Tons of Food into Foreign Countries!
They call Social Security and Medicare an entitlement, even though most of us have been paying for it all our working lives and now when its time for us to collect, the government is running out of money. Why did the government borrow from it in the first place? For "bridges to nowhere" and pet projects at home to buy votes?
We have hundreds of adoptable children who are shoved aside to make room for the adoption of foreign orphans.
AMERICA: a country where we have homeless citizens without shelter, children going to bed hungry, elderly going without 'needed' meds, and mentally ill without treatment -etc., etc.
YET......................
They have a 'Benefit' for the people of Haiti on 12 TV stations, ships and
planes lining up with food, water, tents, clothes, bedding, doctors and medical
supplies.
Imagine if the *GOVERNMENT* gave 'US' the same support they give to other countries.
SAD? YEAH. OK, SO WHEN DO WE DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT?????
A suggestion: Make a copy of this. Print it out. And mail it to your U.S. Senators and Congressmen & women. Write a personal note at the bottom and tell them to do the job WE sent them to do and are paying them to do. Watch who responds. Who gets the job done. Those who don't? Vote them out ASAP
Monday, July 18, 2011
MAINE GOVERNMENT LESSON LEARNED - or How Patience can SOMETIMES change small power grabs by corporations
The following is Part 1 of a series of postings which will take you, the reader, through the process of a case filed before the Maine Public Utilities Commission (MPUC) as personally experienced by this writer over the past seven months. I will state it is the first, but probably not the last, such experience I have had with such an entity of Maine state government. Consider this my offering in the challenges and opportunities of a United States citizen and Maine resident and taxpayer.
***
For those of you who have been following the travails of this case and writer since Saturday, January 1, 2011, when I first raised a hand in protest to the machinations of Bangor Hydro Electric Company (BHE), and through the 10 subsequent posting, I can now tell you - in synopsized form - of how that case evolved and has been concluded. At least for the time being. Since BHE files for residential rate increases at least every three years based on their claims of Stranded Costs, for which that company believes we, the residential ratepayer should be fiscally responsible, we can expect to go through it again beginning in December 2013.
NOTE: If you are interested in reading the previous postings, you can click on "Older Posts" and screen down to the following dates: Sunday, 5/22; Monday, 4/4; Thursday, 3/17; Sunday, 3/13; Thursday, 3/10; Wednesday, 3/9; Monday, 3/7; Sunday, 2/13; Monday, 1/24; Thursday, 1/13; Wednesday, 1/12 and the initial posting Saturday, 1/1 when it all began (for me).
A Bit of Background
The Commissioners of the MPUC are appointed by the governor and confirmed by the Maine Legislature for, I believe, three-year terms. The latest appointment was Mr. Welch, Chairman. He is reported to have been a Commissioner (under a different governor) at the time BHE was directed by the Maine Legislature to sell off its electricity-generating resources. For that sale, BHE is reported to have received $750,000,000. BHE is currently a wholly-owned subsidiary of EMERA, a Canadian Corporation. BHE is now a transmission and distribution (only) utility.
The MPUC, with offices in Hollowell, ME, employs a staff of individuals who serve in a variety of capacities. When a case first begins, the parties to the individual case (BHE v. others) work through the direction and management of a Hearing Examiner and his/her staff. Months will pass while the parties do (or don't) communicate their positions and negotiations through this Hearing Examiner before the case will ever be reviewed, heard and ruled on by the three Commissioners. Patience and tenacity are essential for anyone who really wants to see an acceptable resolution to even the smallest issue. A long-life is required if one wants to see bigger issues addressed.
Stranded Costs are defined as debts - both long-term and, apparently, the the mind of BHE management, those incurred related to management decisions. It is a big and broad umbrella in the mind of BHE management.
Over-riding ratepayer issues regarding BHE's requests for residential rate increases for Stranded Costs are (1) when these debts occurred (since the debts should have been a result of the re-organization of BHE following the sale of its electricity-generating resources and subsequently becoming a wholly-owned subsidiary of EMERA), (2)why the proceeds of the sale (the $750,000,000.) were not required to be used/were not used to pay off any remaining debts - or conversely, why EMERA was not required to assume them, and (3) just how long Maine residential ratepayers (that is what we are called - ratepayers) are expected to be increasingly charged to pay off these debts.
This writer became involved only because of a much smaller - but, to me, significant - issue: The transparency of BHE's intent to comply with Maine law requiring notification to its ratepayers that it was filing with the MPUC for a rate increase that would only be applied to residential ratepayers. Leave even the smallest crack in a wall and a cockroach will find a way to crawl through.
You see, BHE "requested that the Commission authorize an increase to its stranded cost rates and approve a three-year levelized revenue requirement of $19.751 million per year for the period of March 1, 2011 through February 28, 2014. (As stated in the MPUC final ORDER, dated June 10, 2011)
Their legally required written notification to the ratepayers of this request did not even have BHE's name on the outside of the bulk-mailed, tri-folded, single sheet which contained only the recipient's name and mailing address.
I say "sometime" because no where on the document (on the address side or the page-long statement of intent inside) was there a mailing date.This document was mailed sometime in December - I received mine December 30, 2010.
Who knows where it was mailed. The bulk-mail stamp was issued out of Cedar Rapids, IA.
And THAT was my issue. I believed the notification had the appearance of end-of-the-year Junk Mail. Junk mail that is automatically through in the trash unopened.
Based on the content of their application, one might wonder if there was an INTENT to have as few ratepayers become aware of their request as possible. Apparently very few ratepayers were aware - or, if aware, thought they could do anything to stop or appeal such an increase.
Neither of those statements applied to yours truly. I raised my hand and wrote a letter with copies of both sides of the notification. By the time this series is finished, it is my hope that vast numbers of BHE ratepayers will do the same come December 2013, because corporate greed and underhanded ways to undercut ratepayers, voters, citizens - people - needs to be stood up against. We, the American people, need to become our own corporation.
***
For those of you who have been following the travails of this case and writer since Saturday, January 1, 2011, when I first raised a hand in protest to the machinations of Bangor Hydro Electric Company (BHE), and through the 10 subsequent posting, I can now tell you - in synopsized form - of how that case evolved and has been concluded. At least for the time being. Since BHE files for residential rate increases at least every three years based on their claims of Stranded Costs, for which that company believes we, the residential ratepayer should be fiscally responsible, we can expect to go through it again beginning in December 2013.
NOTE: If you are interested in reading the previous postings, you can click on "Older Posts" and screen down to the following dates: Sunday, 5/22; Monday, 4/4; Thursday, 3/17; Sunday, 3/13; Thursday, 3/10; Wednesday, 3/9; Monday, 3/7; Sunday, 2/13; Monday, 1/24; Thursday, 1/13; Wednesday, 1/12 and the initial posting Saturday, 1/1 when it all began (for me).
A Bit of Background
The Commissioners of the MPUC are appointed by the governor and confirmed by the Maine Legislature for, I believe, three-year terms. The latest appointment was Mr. Welch, Chairman. He is reported to have been a Commissioner (under a different governor) at the time BHE was directed by the Maine Legislature to sell off its electricity-generating resources. For that sale, BHE is reported to have received $750,000,000. BHE is currently a wholly-owned subsidiary of EMERA, a Canadian Corporation. BHE is now a transmission and distribution (only) utility.
The MPUC, with offices in Hollowell, ME, employs a staff of individuals who serve in a variety of capacities. When a case first begins, the parties to the individual case (BHE v. others) work through the direction and management of a Hearing Examiner and his/her staff. Months will pass while the parties do (or don't) communicate their positions and negotiations through this Hearing Examiner before the case will ever be reviewed, heard and ruled on by the three Commissioners. Patience and tenacity are essential for anyone who really wants to see an acceptable resolution to even the smallest issue. A long-life is required if one wants to see bigger issues addressed.
Stranded Costs are defined as debts - both long-term and, apparently, the the mind of BHE management, those incurred related to management decisions. It is a big and broad umbrella in the mind of BHE management.
Over-riding ratepayer issues regarding BHE's requests for residential rate increases for Stranded Costs are (1) when these debts occurred (since the debts should have been a result of the re-organization of BHE following the sale of its electricity-generating resources and subsequently becoming a wholly-owned subsidiary of EMERA), (2)why the proceeds of the sale (the $750,000,000.) were not required to be used/were not used to pay off any remaining debts - or conversely, why EMERA was not required to assume them, and (3) just how long Maine residential ratepayers (that is what we are called - ratepayers) are expected to be increasingly charged to pay off these debts.
This writer became involved only because of a much smaller - but, to me, significant - issue: The transparency of BHE's intent to comply with Maine law requiring notification to its ratepayers that it was filing with the MPUC for a rate increase that would only be applied to residential ratepayers. Leave even the smallest crack in a wall and a cockroach will find a way to crawl through.
You see, BHE "requested that the Commission authorize an increase to its stranded cost rates and approve a three-year levelized revenue requirement of $19.751 million per year for the period of March 1, 2011 through February 28, 2014. (As stated in the MPUC final ORDER, dated June 10, 2011)
Their legally required written notification to the ratepayers of this request did not even have BHE's name on the outside of the bulk-mailed, tri-folded, single sheet which contained only the recipient's name and mailing address.
I say "sometime" because no where on the document (on the address side or the page-long statement of intent inside) was there a mailing date.This document was mailed sometime in December - I received mine December 30, 2010.
Who knows where it was mailed. The bulk-mail stamp was issued out of Cedar Rapids, IA.
And THAT was my issue. I believed the notification had the appearance of end-of-the-year Junk Mail. Junk mail that is automatically through in the trash unopened.
Based on the content of their application, one might wonder if there was an INTENT to have as few ratepayers become aware of their request as possible. Apparently very few ratepayers were aware - or, if aware, thought they could do anything to stop or appeal such an increase.
Neither of those statements applied to yours truly. I raised my hand and wrote a letter with copies of both sides of the notification. By the time this series is finished, it is my hope that vast numbers of BHE ratepayers will do the same come December 2013, because corporate greed and underhanded ways to undercut ratepayers, voters, citizens - people - needs to be stood up against. We, the American people, need to become our own corporation.
Friday, July 15, 2011
A MOVIE WORTH WATCHING - AND THINK ABOUT WASHINGTON D.C. POLITICANS
First of all, apologies are due for the absence of articles and commentary for the past few months. This writer has been inundated with writing deadlines (I am in a writers group that meets weekly, and have been working on two different manuscripts - more or less fiction crime stories for a big writers conference this coming November in the Boston area).
Additionally, a lot of time was required to stay current and participate in a case that came before the Maine Public Utilities Commission (MPUC) in January (just finished) about which I will be writing in coming weeks. The case involved Bangor Hydro Electric Company’s every-three-year request for an increase in rates. Residential customers of BHE should be interested and possibly upset. I’ll leave that to you to decide.
However, today I want to bring something else to the table. I know of very few people who are not aware of the debacle that’s been going on for months in Washington D.C. over the issue of raising the debt ceiling, the requirement by many that any additional borrowing must be partnered with a decrease in federal government spending, etc., etc., ad nauseam. Everyone seems to have a “position.” Few seem to have the country’s welfare, particularly the members of the hard-working (or not working) middle class and poor. So that is the issue, in an indirect way, of today’s offering.
The other day while in Bangor, I needed to pick up something at the Bed, Bath and Beyond store at the Bangor Mall. While there I spotted a rack of never-used movie DVDs – at $5.00 each. Thinking there might be something worth watching (maybe during the endless commercial breaks on nearly ever channel, including cable), I was pleased to find two I had never seen but had wanted to when they first came out in theaters. “Frost/Nixon” – a Ron Howard movie, and “Swing Vote” starring Kevin Costner.
Last night, with nothing of interest on the TV, I decided to watch “Swing Vote.” I encourage everyone, regardless of political persuasion to watch that movie. Pick it up as a rental or check out the bargains at Bed, Bath and Beyond. There were several copies.
“Swing Vote” is as relevant to what is going on in Washington D.C. now as it was when the movie came out – maybe more so.
The premise is this: The final election for President of the United States has taken place. There is an absolute tie at the electoral college based on votes from every state except New Mexico. And all of the votes from Mexico have been counted – EXCEPT ONE (Kevin Costner’s). And that one vote will determine which of the two candidates the delegate/s from New Mexico will vote – in essence Kevin's character, named Bud, has THE tie-breaking vote for THE President of the United States.
Of course someone in the media has to figure out WHO is going to cast THE crucial vote and the world media descends on his poor ramshackle trailer. Bud is basically a looser. He drinks, can’t get up in the morning, has just been terminated from his job, hasn’t fixed the hot water heater so he doesn’t smell very good (can’t take a shower without hot water), and pays absolutely no attention to the state of world, (much less the local news.
BUT, Bud has this amazing daughter who is a student in probably the 6th grade (or thereabouts). And she believes in one’s Civic Responsibility – that voting is a Social Contract between the citizens of this country and their country. (Gee, does that sound like anyone you know from this blog?) And therein lies the first of Bud’s many challenges in this movie.
Now I won’t tell you anymore about the story OTHER THAN TO SAY there is one question Bud asks at the end of the movie (I won’t tell you to whom he directs the question) and it is as relevant today as it was during the movie’s timeframe.
I challenge any reader to answer that question – and ask why the people elected to represent us, the people of this country, can’t seem to get it. And get their job done.
It’s just a thought. We all know what that’s worth.
Additionally, a lot of time was required to stay current and participate in a case that came before the Maine Public Utilities Commission (MPUC) in January (just finished) about which I will be writing in coming weeks. The case involved Bangor Hydro Electric Company’s every-three-year request for an increase in rates. Residential customers of BHE should be interested and possibly upset. I’ll leave that to you to decide.
However, today I want to bring something else to the table. I know of very few people who are not aware of the debacle that’s been going on for months in Washington D.C. over the issue of raising the debt ceiling, the requirement by many that any additional borrowing must be partnered with a decrease in federal government spending, etc., etc., ad nauseam. Everyone seems to have a “position.” Few seem to have the country’s welfare, particularly the members of the hard-working (or not working) middle class and poor. So that is the issue, in an indirect way, of today’s offering.
The other day while in Bangor, I needed to pick up something at the Bed, Bath and Beyond store at the Bangor Mall. While there I spotted a rack of never-used movie DVDs – at $5.00 each. Thinking there might be something worth watching (maybe during the endless commercial breaks on nearly ever channel, including cable), I was pleased to find two I had never seen but had wanted to when they first came out in theaters. “Frost/Nixon” – a Ron Howard movie, and “Swing Vote” starring Kevin Costner.
Last night, with nothing of interest on the TV, I decided to watch “Swing Vote.” I encourage everyone, regardless of political persuasion to watch that movie. Pick it up as a rental or check out the bargains at Bed, Bath and Beyond. There were several copies.
“Swing Vote” is as relevant to what is going on in Washington D.C. now as it was when the movie came out – maybe more so.
The premise is this: The final election for President of the United States has taken place. There is an absolute tie at the electoral college based on votes from every state except New Mexico. And all of the votes from Mexico have been counted – EXCEPT ONE (Kevin Costner’s). And that one vote will determine which of the two candidates the delegate/s from New Mexico will vote – in essence Kevin's character, named Bud, has THE tie-breaking vote for THE President of the United States.
Of course someone in the media has to figure out WHO is going to cast THE crucial vote and the world media descends on his poor ramshackle trailer. Bud is basically a looser. He drinks, can’t get up in the morning, has just been terminated from his job, hasn’t fixed the hot water heater so he doesn’t smell very good (can’t take a shower without hot water), and pays absolutely no attention to the state of world, (much less the local news.
BUT, Bud has this amazing daughter who is a student in probably the 6th grade (or thereabouts). And she believes in one’s Civic Responsibility – that voting is a Social Contract between the citizens of this country and their country. (Gee, does that sound like anyone you know from this blog?) And therein lies the first of Bud’s many challenges in this movie.
Now I won’t tell you anymore about the story OTHER THAN TO SAY there is one question Bud asks at the end of the movie (I won’t tell you to whom he directs the question) and it is as relevant today as it was during the movie’s timeframe.
I challenge any reader to answer that question – and ask why the people elected to represent us, the people of this country, can’t seem to get it. And get their job done.
It’s just a thought. We all know what that’s worth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
