Open letter to Yukon Utilities Board chair Bruce McLennan; vice-chair Robert Laking and members Richard Hancock and Naresh Prasad:
Early in the new year the Utilities Consumers’ Group released a report card on the Yukon Utilities Board, giving it a failing grade on the way in which it interpreted what should be done with the extra earnings from the yearly escalation of the energy and demand charges to Rate 39 customers, the mines.
UCG believes it should go to reduce the rates of all nonindustrial customers. The board appears determined to give these extra revenues, above its own previous allotted requirement, to the Yukon Energy Corporation.
In a complaint letter, UCG requested the board to again review this decision and to reduce nonindustrial rates to offset these accumulated yearly increases in revenues. To this the board wrote: “As matters raised by UCG were previously considered, the letter of complaint does not disclose a basis for complaining about YEC rates or a change in rates other than as authorized by an enactment.”
As to the previous Rate 39 process reference, for which UCG made the same arguments concerning extra revenue income, the board noted: “The board does not consider comments that are outside of the scope of an application.”
Yet even prior examination demonstrates that in its submission regarding the General Rate Application Phase II compliance filing, UCG submitted that the utilities should be directed to refile rates that not only reduce nonindustrial rates for the additional revenues generated by the differential Rider F, but also the proposed adjustments to the demand and energy charges of the Firm Mine Rate (Rate Schedule 39) that were under review.
YEC/YECL responded that this issue was out of scope and that there was no basis to use higher revenues from industrial customers to further reduce rates for nonindustrial customers.
In its decision on this, board order 2011-05 determined: “The board was of the opinion that the concerns raised by UCG were addressed in the reply from YEC/YECL and that some of the comments raised by UCG were outside the scope of this compliance filing.”
So when are these rate issues raised by UCG in the scope of any of your proceedings?
Accordingly, it is our opinion that these board members no longer reflect the “public good” mandate for which they were appointed, and unless any member can sufficiently demonstrate that they dissented to these decisions, then our organization requests that they all respectfully resign.
Utilities Consumers’ Group