The miseducation of Mr. Fletcher

By FRANCISCO DELA CRUZ

Special to the Saipan Tribune

Editor’s Note: The following is the text of a letter the author sent to House Speaker Joseph P. Deleon Guerrero and Senate President Ralph DLG. Torres on March 25, 2014. He requested for its publication in the Saipan Tribune. Due to its length, it is being published in two parts.

First of a two-part series

Dear Speaker and Senate President: I am writing in response to the letter dated Feb. 7, 2014, addressed to the Speaker of the House and President of the Senate by Mr. Alan W. Fletcher, executive director of CUC, which was received and entered as Dept. & Agency Communication 18-8.

In his letter, Mr. Fletcher refutes the provisions of the House Joint Resolution 18-15 and claims that the resolution’s provisions are factually untrue. Mr. Fletcher also asserts that the resolution inappropriately criticizes him and therefore the utility for complying with CNMI law, federal law, and the Commonwealth Public Utilities Commission’s orders. For the sake of clarity, HJR 18-15 concerned Mr. Fletcher, exclusively. It addressed his inability to steer CUC forward in the right direction by both balancing what is before CUC with regards to the stipulated orders and the high cost of utilities that he manages and oversees. The resolution was not intended to apply to CUC in any fashion whatsoever.

Mr. Fletcher also points out the CUC has always been at the services of the Legislature by attending committee meetings when invited and implies that he should be given credit for appearing before the Legislature. As to this point, Mr. Fletcher should be mindful that as public servants we legislators represent the entire CNMI. On behalf of the people of the CNMI and CUC’s customers, the Legislature may exercise its subpoena powers that permit legislators to compel anyone to appear before any committee. Accordingly, Mr. Fletcher is not doing the Legislature or the public viewing our hearings any favors by gracing us with his presence. A public servant has a duty to come when needed. A public servant should come when he is politely requested to do so without asking for undue credit.

It appears Mr. Fletcher confuses our civility and professional courtesy with weakness. Should the Legislature, on behalf of the people of the CNMI, subpoena Mr. Fletcher in the future and have him testify under oath under penalty of contempt so that he can understand and appreciate the difference between out preferred method of making informal requests for his appearances which accommodate his schedule on the one hand, and legal subpoenas that will compel his appearance and testimony under oath, at a time and date of our choosing, on the other?

Progress and future cost

Mr. Fletcher claims that fuel costs account for the lion’s share of electric bill in the CNMI and converting to another source of base-load generation has the greatest potential for economic savings for consumers. He does not however, state with any clarity what other sources of base-load generators CUC is looking at now. Is it geothermal?

Furthermore, what is this $300 million, four-year fuel purchase contract that CUC is now embarking on? Has this been RFP’ed? Why four years? This is $75 million per year just on fuel! Will this lock CUC customers in for the next four years on diesel power generation? Isn’t there something else in the offing that can reduce our cost sooner such as LNG or SPMR? Do we really need to wait four years and throw away $300 million? Is that what you and the administration want, Mr. Fletcher?

Mr. Fletcher states that the end goal is to reduce out dependency on fossil fuel, provide reliable electrical service, and lower cost for consumers. In this how Mr. Fletcher plans to reduce the dependency on fossil fuel—by entering into a four-year fuel purchase?

Geothermal exploration

What then happens if the exploration is not as expected? Do we begin studies for another alternative power generation? How much are we or the federal government throwing now into this bucket of geothermal exploration?

The Guam Power Authority is leaning toward LNG and working on their Integrated Resources Plan. It should not hurt to visit them and ask for more information in these regards. Sen. Tom Ada of Guam is inviting members of the Legislature and even CUC to these discussions. This may be something that can benefit CUC.

Petition to raise rates

While I am very concerned whenever CUC petitions to CPUC for rate increases, I am more concerned about what CUC is doing to cut costs and the plans they have moving forward. I have yet to hear or know of any concrete plans that CUC has.

Mr. Fletcher also stated during the CPUC hearings that the customer base for CUC is, and continues to, decline. This doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out! This will continue to be the case after the CPUC grants and approves all base rates as petitioned by CUC.

Convenience fee

It is my understanding that this was also a fee submitted by CUC. Really? At whose convenience? A better word for this fee is an “Inconvenience Fee.” CUC wants to inconvenience its customers more!

Recently it was brought to my attention that the CFO for CUC has his contract renewed with a pay increase! As if Mr. Chuck Warren isn’t being paid enough! Is CUC raising the base rates so that it may augment Mr. Chuck Warren’s salary increase? And some people wonder why I am so critical of CUC raising rates for its customers.

Transparency

Again, Mr. Fletcher points out that CUC operates in an open and transparent manner. He also states that CUC has functioned as a hybrid agency somewhere between a government agency and an independent public corporation. Mr. Fletcher should he reminded that this is how CUC is supposed to operated since CUC is a semi-autonomous agency of the CNMI government. The issue here is not about how CUC is composed and structured. The issue here is whether the needs of the community are being met by a community utilities corporation in the areas of service and rates. Petitioning for rate increases for the CFO or something worse is troublesome and disturbing.

LED streetlights saving

Mr. Fletcher states that CUC does not understand this allegation. Given that Department of Public Works’ Energy Office has given the numbers for LED streetlights:

Saipan: 2,000
Tinian: 276
Rota: 516

Mr. Fletcher is saying that even with 2,792 streetlights replaces with LED type, actual kWh/month being billed have increased due to better accounting for the actual number of streetlights.

During the change of these 2,792 streetlights, CUC did an inventory of the streetlights in all three islands. What were the results? Was DPW Energy Division also part of this accounting or inventory so that they knew exactly how may streetlights there are and are being charged to them? It appears that no matter what efficiency practice the CNMI government or paying customers make, CUC will find ways to still charge more! Trying to be efficient will not necessarily constitute savings should be motto for CUC.

Non-efficient vehicles

I have witnessed on several occasions heavy-duty trucks traveling with just the driver along Beach Road and Middle Road with really no justifiable reasons where a standard pickup truck can suffice. They were not hauling heavy materials and supplies. Mr. Fletcher’s response is that the fleet change-out occurred before he became executive director, or was it during Mr. Malae’s term that the vehicles were procured?

Mr. Fletcher states, I am happy to note that there is supposedly a 21-percent decrease in fuel consumption per gallon per month as compared to the FY 2012 average. However, until we see financial statements on fuel consumption, I cannot verify this statement. Does CUC realize savings when a meter-reader goes around driving a Chevy Silverado V-6 engine truck? I have a picture in hand and anyone is welcome to see it.

To be continued.

Francisco Dela Cruz is a member of the House of Representatives of the 18th Legislature.