In January, the PUC proposed a cut in electricity rates; it did the
same in February, amounting to a total of 15%, all because of the world price
of oil which has fallen by $100 since mid 2008. But that rate reduction hasn’t
been reflected in your light bill because BEL has challenged both reductions
saying that it has to hold unto the 20 or so million dollars that it’s
saved on fuel as a lifeline to cure a cash flow crisis. Now all those millions
are ratepayers’ money and the law says it should be passed through right
back to them.
Well, BEL it seems is willing to go at least halfway...it has proposed
a 6% rate reduction. It’s a long ways from 15% – but the company
includes the proposal in an annual rate review proceeding it has submitted to
the PUC. And we might be briefly encouraged that some relief from high rate
is in sight, except that the PUC says that ARP application is illegal. The regulator
says that what’s due right now is something else, an FTRP – a full
tariff review proceeding, so it’s kinda like sending a Christmas card
at Easter. Today, Leroy Almendarez, the PUC’s Director
of Administration and Rate Setting and C. Victor Lewis, the Director of Electricity
told us that they simply cannot accept the application.
Leroy Almendarez,
“If they apply for an ARP what they are saying in effect is that some
other bylaw is in place. The present bylaw says that it should be a FTRP. So
because of that, we cannot accommodate their application.”
C. Victor Lewis,
“The submission of an ARP is not legal because the only valid bylaw
requires a FTRP. So BEL in their submission is not acting legally as one. If
we accept it, then we will be equally acting illegally.”
Leroy Almendarez,
“We will have to continue to say to them that it is an FTRP that you
have to apply for. You cannot apply for an ARP.”
Almendarez concludes that indirectly BEL is saying that SI number
141 of 2007 is still in effect, ignoring that it was repealed in March of 2008
– which we note is under appeal by BEL. But while the PUC can’t
accept what it holds to be an unlawful application, they did review it and they
say that the company isn’t just proposing a 6% decrease, it is doing so
on the condition that the PUC reverse a $36 million decision it made last year.
Leroy Almendarez,
“This 6% that they are applying for comes with conditions. Those comes
with conditions in their application. One of them being that they are asking
for a reversal of a correction of some $36.1 million that was already made.
That is one of the conditions. They are also saying that they must experience
some kind of sales growth and they will add new energy to their grid. It is
good to have new sources of energy but to ask us now to revert back or to take
back the $36.1 million is basically saying we are going against our own decision.”
That decision is also being appealed in court. BEL had no response
to the PUC statement, and its only comment was that we can see the full ARP
application on its website.
Email
Print