CUC withdraws proposed hike in late payment fee, other NRRs

The Commonwealth Utilities Corp.’s board of directors has decided to recall a number of proposed new fees it filed with the Commonwealth Public Utilities Commission.

CUC, through its lawyer Deborah Fisher, formally notified the commission on Wednesday that it will be filing a separate notice that would specifically withdraw the non-revenue rate proposals that are awaiting the commission’s decision.

At the June 19 meeting of the CUC board, the Senate and House public utilities transportation and communications committee chairs, Sen. Pete Reyes (IR-Saipan) and Rep. Lorenzo Deleon Guerrero (Ind-Saipan), on behalf of customers, jointly appealed that these rate petitions be withdrawn to avert further hardships on ratepayers.

“After meeting with the CUC board, it has been determined that CUC shall recall certain matters from the CPUC consideration,” according to Fisher.

She said a separate notice will soon be filed with CPUC formally withdrawing the proposed increase in late payment fee. CUC, which currently charges 1 percent of the past due amount as late payment charge, wants this increased to 10 percent of the past due amount.

Fisher also disclosed the withdrawal of the increased fee for a new single-phase service connection fee (from $135 to $450), the new fees recommended for three-phase new service connection, and for after-hour single-phase service connection fee.

At the last CPUC hearing this month, Fisher said that CUC already informed the commission of its intention to recall the proposed renewable energy fees for installation and annual inspection fee. Fisher reiterated this last Wednesday.

With this latest development, what’s left on the CPUC table for action are three remaining non-revenue rate proposals. These include the proposed $550 unauthorized electric service reconnection fee, the proposed $200 reconnection at the pole fee, and the proposed increase in investigation fee from $60 to $210. All this remaining proposals were described as necessary, just, and reasonable, based on the joint stipulation of CUC and CPUC’s consultant, Georgetown Consulting.

Docket No. 13-01 has been with CPUC since July 2013. It is a rate case petition comprising various components of which some have been adjudicated and acted on by CPUC this year. This case was filed prior to the revival of the CUC board.

According to the Legislature, it is only fitting that, as the decision-making body of the agency, the CUC board should have the final say on whether or not there’s a need to petition for rate adjustment—not CUC’s management.

In the original rate petition, CUC endorsed changes and adjustments on 20 non-revenue rates. About 10 of these have been approved while 11 items were left for commission consideration at its fall regulatory meeting.

NRRs are isolated fees endorsed for specific customers.

This is the second time that CUC, pursuant to the decision of its board, withdrew rate proposals. It will be recalled that the agency also withdraw last month the standby charge previously recommended by CUC for its large commercial customers.