The following information is presented on the web page of the law firm that represents Bangor Hydro before the Maine PUC. When the peoples "law firm", the Office of the Public Advocate, says nothing during negotiations and "discussions" to challenge increasing rates and the utilities' justification for same, it is no wonder Maine has such high utility rates and businesses give a Thumb Down to doing business here.
***
"William S. Harwood serves as Co-Chair of the firm's Energy Practice Group. He has devoted most of his 30 year career to representing public utilities before state and federal regulatory agencies. He has represented electric, gas, water and telecommunications companies in more than 50 major cases before the Maine Public Utilities Commission and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, including rate cases, prudence investigations, management audits, merger approvals, requests for certificates of public convenience and necessity and rulemaking proceedings. Bill counsels utilities on proactive strategies to both anticipate regulatory developments and efficiently manage the regulatory process.
Bill has been extensively involved in traditional rate setting issues, including CWIP in rate base, attrition, accounting orders and cost of capital. Bill has negotiated long-term alternative rate plans which include automatic inflation adjustments, service quality penalties, and recovery of mandated or exogenous costs. He has also negotiated numerous long-term special rate agreements between utilities and specific industrial consumers.
Bill was actively involved in the restructuring of the Maine electric utility industry, including representing utilities in the sale of their generating assets, recovery of stranded costs and providing standard offer (default) service. More recently Bill has represented developers of new transmission lines in securing Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity and wind developers in negotiating Interconnection Agreements and securing adequate transmission capacity for delivery of the output. Bill has served as Adjunct Professor of Law at the University of Maine School of Law, teaching utilitiy regulation and administrative law.
PUBLICATIONS
Liability for Accidents at Construction Sites: "Do Water Districts Have Immunity," Journal of Maine Water Utilities Association, Vol. 88, 2009.
Co-Authored "Maine Regulation of Public Utilities," (2008).
Co-Authored: “Keep it Flowing: Basic Principles of Water Utility Interconnection Agreements,” Journal of the Maine Water Utilities Association, April 2005.
"Gun Control: State Versus Federal Regulation of Firearms," Maine Policy Review Vol. 11 No. 1 (2002).
"Codification of Maine Rules: An Idea Whose Time Has Come," Maine Bar Journal (March 1992).
Comment, "Liquidation Damages: A Comparison of the Common Law and the Uniform Commercial Code," 45 Ford. L. Review 1349 (1977).
REPRESENTATIVE MATTERS
Represented owner of hydro-electric facilities before FERC in defending claim by upstream owner for headwater benefits.
Represented 11 New England electric utilities in a dispute with the lead owner of a jointly owned generating unit.
Represented Canadian utility before FERC in dispute over restrictions in transmitting energy across international border.
Represented a water company in a five day jury trial in Superior Court to determine fair value of the company’s assets taken by eminent domain.
Represented the developer of a proposed 80 mile 345 kV transmission line.
Represented a Maine electric utility before Maine Supreme Judicial Court in appellate review of a PUC decision approving creation of an unregulated marketing affiliate.
Represented the developer of high pressure natural gas pipeline across Maine.
Arbitrated a dispute between two New England utilities involving rights to a jointly owned generating unit.
Represented a real estate developer before Maine Supreme Judicial Court in dispute over water utility system development charge.
Represented consortium of environmental advocacy groups before the Maine Supreme Judicial Court in its efforts to force removal of a hydro-electric facility.
REPRESENTATIVE CLIENTS
Aliant
Bangor Hydro-Electric Company
Biddeford & Saco Water Company
Central Vermont Public Service Corp.
Community Service Telephone
Emera Energy Services, Inc.
Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline, LLC
National Grid
New Brunswick Power Corp.
Portland Water District "
***
To add to the ongoing pain, Governor LePage's nominee to become the new PUC Chairman is Mr. Welsh, a member of the PUC in the 90s and who advocated then (and now) for Bangor Hydro's generating power sources to be sold. In today's Portland Sentinel it was reported the Legislative Committee has approved this nomination 13-0, all the while Mr. Welsh states the $750 million dollar sale was beneficial to Maine ratepayers. (Which ones, Mr. Welsh?)
Interesting to note that Emera, the Canadian corporation which bought Bangor Hydro, assumed none of the utility's past or current debt and continues to issue Bangor Hydro stock (traded on the NYSE).
While Maine residential customers continue to be screwed, we can thank people like Mr. Welsh for being one of many screw drivers.
Strange how Governor LePage can't seem to find any commissioners for the state who didn't have the same jobs back in the 1990s. Yogi Bera time - "deja vu all over again." This is "people before politics"? A one-term governor is all we need of this one.
Monday, April 4, 2011
Monday, March 28, 2011
EDDINGTON TOWN MEETING
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.
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.
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
