Monday, September 26, 2011
BIGGER PROPERTY TAX INCREASES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD
A phone call yesterday from another Eddington property owner revealed their property tax increase was $500.00 - with the same valuation of their property at last year. This is wrong. It is time to write and email our state Representative Dave Johnson, state Senator Richard Rosen, and Governor Paul LePage. Either the state of Maine wants meaningful (and hopefully quality) education or it doesn't. If it does, then the State needs to pick up its portion of the tab.
Saturday, September 24, 2011
GOOD NEWS - BAD NEWS IN EDDINGTON
First the BAD NEWS: Local Property Tax bills went out this past week.
No one I have spoken with saw anything except an increase - about $200.00 over last year for those with Shoreline property in Eddington. The Town Office states the Mill Rate this year went from 11.3 to 11.9.
This writer has experienced an increase in excess of $700.00 in 4.5 years. Outrageous! And yet, the principle culprit is not local municipal government; it is Maine state government, which has consistently failed to pay its fair share of local school district expenses.
Even though District 63 did everything possible to meet the State's mandate for school consolidation, it was not successful - primarily because of Brewer's School Board and the previous Commissioner of Education. As a result, District 63 not only received less than the state-wide voter mandate of 55% of the State's EPS-defined programs, but also had tax penalties in excess of $185,000 deducted from what the state did provide.
Adding insult to injury, the State of Maine chooses to dictate the assessed value of homes even while homes that have been for sale for more than a year don't sell.
The only good news from this mess is that the state Legislature voted to terminate the "tax penalties" AFTER the current tax year. (Who knows what new excuse the Legislature will use for not funding public education in Maine from this point forward.)
While many in this Senior-Citizen state are trying to survive on fixed incomes with reduced values (no increase in Social Security income for two years) when heating oil, electricity, food, gasoline, etc. are costing more and more, the State of Maine is choosing to (1) force these citizens to move out of state for the minimum 6 months plus 1 day which will cost the state of Maine these citizens' state income tax revenues, or (2) force these property owners to lose their homes, or (3) force these property owners to forgo home repairs, or (4) result in even more cost-cutting in school district facility maintenance, programs or teaching positions. No matter how one cuts it - Maine will lose.
Now the GOOD News: Eddington Planning Board approves expansion of two Eddington businesses.
At last Thursday's meeting of the Eddington Planning Board, approval was granted to:
1. Robert (Robbie) Maquillan - doing business as AutoWorks to relocate from its current location at 1306 Main Road to 1328 Main Road (the former eyesore vacant lot next to New Hope Hospice)- and
2. Expanding the parking lot and constructing an office building at Tradewinds, Claustin Lawrence, 1439 Main Road (@ the intersection of Highway 46).
Both of these businesses have provided exceptional services and products for area residents and people passing along Route 9 (aka Main Road) and Highway 46. The staff are always courteous, helpful and willing to assist stranded travelers. Expanded services will only improve their businesses, but the expanded capabilities will add to the local tax base. That's good news for us all.
As a regular customer of both establishments, this writer heartily supports the actions of the Planning Board.
No one I have spoken with saw anything except an increase - about $200.00 over last year for those with Shoreline property in Eddington. The Town Office states the Mill Rate this year went from 11.3 to 11.9.
This writer has experienced an increase in excess of $700.00 in 4.5 years. Outrageous! And yet, the principle culprit is not local municipal government; it is Maine state government, which has consistently failed to pay its fair share of local school district expenses.
Even though District 63 did everything possible to meet the State's mandate for school consolidation, it was not successful - primarily because of Brewer's School Board and the previous Commissioner of Education. As a result, District 63 not only received less than the state-wide voter mandate of 55% of the State's EPS-defined programs, but also had tax penalties in excess of $185,000 deducted from what the state did provide.
Adding insult to injury, the State of Maine chooses to dictate the assessed value of homes even while homes that have been for sale for more than a year don't sell.
The only good news from this mess is that the state Legislature voted to terminate the "tax penalties" AFTER the current tax year. (Who knows what new excuse the Legislature will use for not funding public education in Maine from this point forward.)
While many in this Senior-Citizen state are trying to survive on fixed incomes with reduced values (no increase in Social Security income for two years) when heating oil, electricity, food, gasoline, etc. are costing more and more, the State of Maine is choosing to (1) force these citizens to move out of state for the minimum 6 months plus 1 day which will cost the state of Maine these citizens' state income tax revenues, or (2) force these property owners to lose their homes, or (3) force these property owners to forgo home repairs, or (4) result in even more cost-cutting in school district facility maintenance, programs or teaching positions. No matter how one cuts it - Maine will lose.
Now the GOOD News: Eddington Planning Board approves expansion of two Eddington businesses.
At last Thursday's meeting of the Eddington Planning Board, approval was granted to:
1. Robert (Robbie) Maquillan - doing business as AutoWorks to relocate from its current location at 1306 Main Road to 1328 Main Road (the former eyesore vacant lot next to New Hope Hospice)- and
2. Expanding the parking lot and constructing an office building at Tradewinds, Claustin Lawrence, 1439 Main Road (@ the intersection of Highway 46).
Both of these businesses have provided exceptional services and products for area residents and people passing along Route 9 (aka Main Road) and Highway 46. The staff are always courteous, helpful and willing to assist stranded travelers. Expanded services will only improve their businesses, but the expanded capabilities will add to the local tax base. That's good news for us all.
As a regular customer of both establishments, this writer heartily supports the actions of the Planning Board.
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
THE STATE OF TEXAS THESE DAYS
From an email this morning from a fellow writer living in Texas.
"We had 72 days of 100+ heat this year and while we had a big thunder/lightning/rain storm two nights ago, the drought continues in Texas. Locally grown crops like fruit and vegetables have been destroyed and produce shipped in from other places is better looking and cheaper. Our idiot governor is running for President and so is spending even less time here taking care of business. Texas lost three and a half million acres of land to wild fires this year, half the national total. There is a huge budget deficit but the politicians won't touch the rainy day fund; instead, they cut four billion dollars from the education system. Some parents will have to pay as much as $1,000 a school year for bus service for their kids but the oil companies can keep their huge tax credits and deductions. Of course. How else would they be able to afford to buy the state politicians? I guess I'm just not constitutionally suited to be a cowgirl."
"We had 72 days of 100+ heat this year and while we had a big thunder/lightning/rain storm two nights ago, the drought continues in Texas. Locally grown crops like fruit and vegetables have been destroyed and produce shipped in from other places is better looking and cheaper. Our idiot governor is running for President and so is spending even less time here taking care of business. Texas lost three and a half million acres of land to wild fires this year, half the national total. There is a huge budget deficit but the politicians won't touch the rainy day fund; instead, they cut four billion dollars from the education system. Some parents will have to pay as much as $1,000 a school year for bus service for their kids but the oil companies can keep their huge tax credits and deductions. Of course. How else would they be able to afford to buy the state politicians? I guess I'm just not constitutionally suited to be a cowgirl."
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
"MUST SEE" MOVIE - THE HELP
Went to see the new release, "The Help", yesterday afternoon at the Bangor Mall Cineplex. FANTASTIC movie - for adults interested in story and characters more than 'special effects.'
With the exception of the final Harry Potter movie during the first week of release, I have never seen a theater so full at a mid-afternoon Matinee as it was for "The Help" yesterday (the 3:20p.m. showing). Nor have I seen so many people over the age of 30 at one showing. (Maybe it shows that we adults WILL go to a movie theater if it is intelligent, mature and well-written.) For certain, this is well written and well acted with a real story to tell. Maybe that explains why, at the conclusion, the audience CLAPPED - close to one full minute! When was the time at any recent movie that happened? Maybe that says as much for the movie-goers as it does for the movie. Time was when audiences regularly clapped at the end of a good movie. Not so much any more. Maybe that says something, too.
Anyone over the age of 50 will remember many of the historical events referenced during the course of the movie. It was a time... not to be forgotten. For those too young to know, just one more reason to see this movie.
With the exception of the final Harry Potter movie during the first week of release, I have never seen a theater so full at a mid-afternoon Matinee as it was for "The Help" yesterday (the 3:20p.m. showing). Nor have I seen so many people over the age of 30 at one showing. (Maybe it shows that we adults WILL go to a movie theater if it is intelligent, mature and well-written.) For certain, this is well written and well acted with a real story to tell. Maybe that explains why, at the conclusion, the audience CLAPPED - close to one full minute! When was the time at any recent movie that happened? Maybe that says as much for the movie-goers as it does for the movie. Time was when audiences regularly clapped at the end of a good movie. Not so much any more. Maybe that says something, too.
Anyone over the age of 50 will remember many of the historical events referenced during the course of the movie. It was a time... not to be forgotten. For those too young to know, just one more reason to see this movie.
Thursday, July 28, 2011
BANGOR HYDRO ELECTRIC RATE INCREASES - PART III OF SERIES RE: CASE NO. 2010-377
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.
*****
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 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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
