Posted by Dennis Herrick on June 04, 2009 at 08:54:38:
I'll bet this has to go to the Massachusetts Senate and to the Governor for a signature before it becomes law. Wanna bet those cockroaches that lobby for Unitil and the other utilities are scurrying around Beacon Hill as we speak. In NH the legislature should be demanding to see level-of-service language in all the utility tariffs. Imagine what National Grid and NStar must be thinking? This is all Unitil's fault. Unitil will be considered an industry pariah from now on.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
House passes laws overseeing utility companies
By Matt Murphy, mmurphy@lowellsun.com
Posted: 06/04/2009 06:37:49 AM EDT
BOSTON -- The House passed a set of new laws Wednesday aimed at holding public utility companies more accountable to their customers in the wake of last year's devastating ice storm by increasing fines and threatening to put companies in receivership if they fail to perform.
Though the bill relates to all utility companies, the Legislature's action was directed at Unitil and its response to an ice storm last December that left thousands of customers without power for up to two weeks.
Representatives blasted Unitil on the floor of the House Wednesday, with Rep. Robert Hargraves, R-Groton, calling the company's response "reminiscent of the Marx Brothers or Larry, Moe and Curley."
Rep. Jennifer Benson, who represents one of the communities most impacted by the storm in Lunenburg, gave her maiden speech during the House debate.
She called the bill a "good start," specifically pointing to a provision that would allow the Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency to intervene in a case of emergency and would allow an independent operator to take over the company for up to 120 days if the state finds that a company's management practices are to blame for a poor response to outages.
"It shouldn't be up to a new (representative) like me to come to the Statehouse and beg for help," Benson said.
The bill, sponsored by Rep. Stephen DiNatale, D-Fitchburg, calls for the Department of Public Utilities to conduct an audit of a utility that serves more than 100,000 customers if that company fails to restore power in a "timely" manner.
If the audit finds management at fault, that company can be placed into receivership for up to 120 days to improve performance and potentially restructure management.
Furthermore, all utilities must submit emergency response plans to the state annually by May 15 that include protocols for accessing mutual aid in case of emergencies.
Failure to submit the plans on time carry a penalty of $500 a day.
In addition, any breach of the emergency plan during an outage can result in fines of $500,000 to $5 million.
DiNatale said Unitil was neither prepared, responsive or accessible during the storm.
"This Legislation will address some of the glaring deficiencies I have cited," said DiNatale, who added that he only regret was that he could not apply the law "ex post facto."
Rep. Barry Finegold, D-Andover, chairman of the Committee Utilities, Telecommunications and Energy, said the bill "basically holds public utilities accountable."
"If they don't perform, we can step in and reorganize the company. But it's not something we want to be doing," Finegold said.
The failure of a utility company to carry out an order from the DPU can result in fines of not more than $1 million.
Finegold said the committee looked at ways to possibly revoke a company's franchise license to operate, but he said it would be impossible to force another utility to buy that company and take over their territory.
COMMENTS:
concerned citizen
Lunenburg, MA
#1
1 hr ago Get rid of Unitil! We have lost power FIVE TIMES in the last month, and I think I spoke to Moe, Larry, and Curly when I called to find out why. Their customer reps are rude and clueless. NOTHING HAS CHANGED!!
Crazy Rachel
Boston, MA
#2
1 hr ago How about an audit of the current physical infrastructure? It's one thing to respond to a devastating outage and another to prevent one.
Still Outraged
Hudson, MA
#3
47 min ago This is not a good enough solution. Replace Unitil and THEN implement this plan. This just lets them get away with it and that's just as horrible as what happened.
J_in _Ward _1
Concord, MA
#4
5 min ago It's a start. Now let them pass Mass Muni Choice legislation.
Jim
Fitchburg, MA
#5
3 min ago Unitil is still laughing, they are untouchable, and continue to line the politicians pockets at taxpayers expense.
AaronA
“"What is the news?"”
Leominster
#6 9 hrs ago
This may be progress.
MEMA might handle a similar ice storm emergency effectively,where unitil knows how to do nothing except fail, miserably.
Benson may be right,this may be a "good start", an incremental step towards our goal,removing unitil from Mass.
Rep Finegold may regret how Matt may have added some spin to his remarks.Though the rep's remarks nonetheless,I'm sure.Removing unitil or placing it in "receivership",even if only 120 days at a time,is exactly what we want to be doing.
Cathy C
AOL
#7 8 hrs ago
Thanks to Rep.Steve Dinatale for continuing to advocate for nothing less than the strongest laws possible and wanting Unitil gone as badly as the rest of the ratepayers.
As we know, their actions are NOTHING less than criminal; pictures of the current infrastructure have been submitted for evidence that is being used by the AG's office.
Further at this time ALL residents should be concerned that Unitil has filed for a rate hike under the Green Communities Act (see public notice in the S&E 5/27)of which the AG has filed a petition to intervene. The hearing date is set for 6/15 in Boston.
not surprised
Boston, MA
#8 7 hrs ago
Again nothing is done to Unitil. I suppose they will most likely raise our rates or put in a new service charge to pay for any new State mandates that Unitil will have to comply to. People wonder why Fitchburg is losing industry; they blame the mayor the city council. Unitil is the number 1 culprit as to why we have no industry and cannot attract any new industry into our community. Energy cost’s are one of the main reason’s we have another paper mill closing in Fitchburg thanks Unitil we love your community spirit keep up the good work.
still a problem
Brockton, MA
#9 7 hrs ago
what about regulating the increase of costs to the consumers? what i see in the future is higher costs to me to cover the fines and fees charged to them.
Townsendite
Westborough, MA
#10 5 hrs ago
Finegold is obviously in Unitil's pocket. This is bull****
AaronA
“"What is the news?"”
Leominster
#11 5 hrs ago
Thanks also to Sen. Flanagan,it seems the many pieces of legislation (or suggestions) she filed were compiled into this new bill,now titled h. 4110,which can be found here;
http://www.mass.gov/legis/bills/house/186/ht0...
Cathy C
AOL
#12 5 hrs ago
read par 99 of this bill:
http://www.mass.gov/legis/bills/house/186/ht0...
Further the DPU has not come down with a decision yet from the hearings but do be watching. Beside the entire region hurting from this economy the Unitil plague has further exacerbated the problem. Until they are gone and they will eventually be GONE, we need to fight every aspect of their continued efforts to raise rates and further cripple the ratepayers.
curious
Haverhill, MA
#13 3 hrs ago
Can some one help me out cuz I am really confused. In this artical it states that this new bill or law is actionable for Utilities with 100,000 customers or more. And this law is a Massachusetts law only. So here is my confusion. Unitil in Massachusetts has only 25,000 electric customers and 15,000 gas customers. In my book that adds up to 40,000 customers. So that would tell me that Unitil is exempt from this law seeing how they are 60,000 customers short of the required 100,000. So does this mean that the law filed by Steve Dinatale that was aimed at Unitil doesnt even effect them? Another part of the article states that no company can be forced to buy out another. So not to rain on Cathy C. parade or tirade if you will. How does she figure Unitil will be gone. I do not envision a company like National Grid going after a small customer base like Unitil when a company like NStar exsits with millions of customers.
debee
Bolton, MA
#14 3 hrs ago
What about compensation for Unitil's customers who never saw a penny adjustment in their bills?
What about federal money for those who suffered storm damaage that wasn't covered by their home owner's insurance?
Overseeing the utility companies is a drop in the bucket!
Not angry like most
Haverhill, MA
#15 3 hrs ago
AaronA wrote:
This may be progress.
MEMA might handle a similar ice storm emergency effectively,where unitil knows how to do nothing except fail, miserably.
Benson may be right,this may be a "good start", an incremental step towards our goal,removing unitil from Mass.
Rep Finegold may regret how Matt may have added some spin to his remarks.Though the rep's remarks nonetheless,I'm sure.Removing unitil or placing it in "receivership",even if only 120 days at a time,is exactly what we want to be doing.
Mema taking care of us during and Ice storm of that magnatude. I have a real warm and fuzzy felling now. 14 days would turn into 14 months with them in control.Have you been reading the papers or watching the news Massachusetts is broke and Mema is a joke.
Compared
Brookfield, MA
#16 2 hrs ago
One of my co-workers brought in a utility bill from the Auburn area to compare with mine. I have been able to cut my usage to 275 kh for a bill of $67. The bill from southern Mass was approx. 580 kh and was $89.
Doesn't take long to see we are getting raked for inferior service. By the way, they lost power for a half day.
J_in_ Ward_1
Concord, MA
#17 2 hrs ago
curious wrote:
In this artical it states that this new bill or law is actionable for Utilities with 100,000 customers or more.
The Sentinel has it backwards. The legislation applies to companies with less than 100,000 customers.
Cathy C
AOL
#18 2 hrs ago
Sentinel article is wrong, note link above to bill which states less than 100,000.
Getting rid of Unitil is a multi-prong approach; I am certain it will happen for multiple reasons, in the meantime towns are further working on research on municipalities (the most logical choice I believe) and Natl.Grid is closely watching.
curious wrote:
Can some one help me out cuz I am really confused. In this artical it states that this new bill or law is actionable for Utilities with 100,000 customers or more. And this law is a Massachusetts law only. So here is my confusion. Unitil in Massachusetts has only 25,000 electric customers and 15,000 gas customers. In my book that adds up to 40,000 customers. So that would tell me that Unitil is exempt from this law seeing how they are 60,000 customers short of the required 100,000. So does this mean that the law filed by Steve Dinatale that was aimed at Unitil doesnt even effect them? Another part of the article states that no company can be forced to buy out another. So not to rain on Cathy C. parade or tirade if you will. How does she figure Unitil will be gone. I do not envision a company like National Grid going after a small customer base like Unitil when a company like NStar exsits with millions of customers.
Cathy C
AOL
#19 2 hrs ago
Please read the link to the bill that states protection to the ratepayers from penalties and fines...
still a problem wrote:
what about regulating the increase of costs to the consumers? what i see in the future is higher costs to me to cover the fines and fees charged to them.
Yippee
Boston, MA
#20 12 hrs ago
It's about damn time they are held responsible for SOMETHING!
It_means_Nothing
Ashburnham, MA
#21 11 hrs ago
the towns individually need the right to take over the infrastructure on their own soil and manage it as a municipality. The current law stipulates that the towns receiving service from unitil have to purchase from the PRIVATE service provider (monopoly)at a rate the PRIVATE service provider specifies if they wish to do this. It's CR**. Nothing has changed. Unitil got off scott free, and your legislature failed you, as it always does, Massachusetts.
uth
Needham, MA
#22 11 hrs ago
can they or is unitil aware of GM and Chrysler put into receivership,,,unitil your next..gm never thought the day would come..better start packing unitil,,,it would please obama nothing more then to have another cause to championship,,,maybe we should forward this battle to the whitehouse
another Lunenburg voice
Lunenburg, MA
#23 10 hrs ago
I would like to thank the entire Central Mass. legislative delegation for their unity, persistence and their singular intention to do what is best to protect the ratepayers against what is a state-sponsored monopoly with little or no accountability. I would especially like to thank Rep. Benson and Sen. Flanagan, who helped Lunenburg immensely even as legislator-elects who hadn't yet taken their respective offices. Next, I hope there are enough votes to make it passed the Senate!
After that, onto the Muni Electric Legislation from Rep. Kaufman with most (all?) our the Central Mass. legislative coalition signing on in support.
This will be the next important tool in protecting the ratepayers by allowing alternatives.
Then the DPU decision (keeping my fingers crossed), the class action lawsuit, and further investigation by the Attorney General's office.
Constant, steady pressure will eventually be the answer to getting what I believe we all want: the best utility service at the most competitive rates.