Ever seen water burning? Or an egg laying a chicken? Perhaps water flowing uphill? Mark today on your calendar, because now you have! BEL is requesting to LOWER it's rates by 6%. Are they really doing that voluntarily? We do still have absolutely the highest rates in the //ambergriscaye.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/ubb/showflat/Number/284509/ though. Read this:
Originally Posted by 7 News Belize
BEL Proposes to Cut Light Rates by 6%

[Linked Image] 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Almendarez concludes that indirectly BEL is saying that SI number 141 of 2007 is still in effect, ignoring that it was repealed in March of 2008 – which we note is under appeal by BEL.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.


Live and let live