Skip Maine state header navigation
STATE OF MAINE
PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
242 STATE STREET
18 STATE HOUSE STATION
AUGUSTA, MAINE
04333-0018
THOMAS L .
WELCH STEPHEN
L. DIAMOND
CHAIRMAN SHARON M. REISHUS
COMMISSIONERS
February 4, 2005
The
Honorable Phillip Bartlett II, Senate Chair
The
Honorable Lawrence Bliss, House Chair
115
State House Station
Augusta,
ME 04330
Dear
Senator Bartlett and Representative Bliss:
Pursuant
to P.L. 1998, Chapter 764, “An Act to Delay the Implementation of Performance
Budgeting for State Government,” I am attaching our draft Strategic Plan for
Fiscal Years 2006 and 2007. This is an
updated version of the report that we submitted for Fiscal Year 2004 and 2005.
In
this plan we have reviewed both internal and external forces that impact our
work and our approach to meet the challenges that confront us. As in the past, we will work closely with
you to ensure that the Commission meets our legislative mandate.
We
believe that we have many useful measures, tracking state, regional, and
national statistics to help us determine the extent to which we are meeting our
goals and objectives. Unfortunately, we
have had questions about the accuracy of data provided by federal government
agencies that we have used in the past.
We are currently evaluating the data and will work to have it corrected
by the responsible agency. We also
have questions about the usefulness of some of our past measures used to
determine our performance. In this
report we have stopped using some measures that we have found to be inadequate
for our purposes and have added others.
We are regularly reviewing measures that we report to you in an effort
to provide you with the best information available for you to assess our
efforts. Please let us know if the
measures we are using are useful or whether there are other measures that you
would like us to develop.
Please
call me if you have any questions please contact Marjorie McLaughlin at
287-1365 or me at 287-1353.
Sincerely yours,
Dennis L. Keschl,
Administrative Director
Maine Public Utilities
Commission
PHONE: (207) 287-3831
(VOICE) TTY:
1-800-437-12 FAX: (207) 287-1039
MAINE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION’S
2002 STRATEGIC PLAN
for
Fiscal Years 2006 and 2007
due
pursuant to
P.L. 1998, CHAPTER
764
December 1,
2004
Executive
Summary
P.L. 1995,
Chapter 704, “An Act to Implement Performance Budgeting in State Government,”
established a time line and system for implementing performance budgeting by
the biennium 2000-2001 beginning with a comprehensive strategic plan for each
agency. P.L. 1998, Chapter 764, “An Act
to Delay the Implementation of Performance Budgeting for State Government,”
delays the implementation to allow departments and agencies of State Government
time to further refine strategic plans and to solicit additional input from the
Legislature. This draft outlines the
Maine Public Utilities Commission’s (the Commission’s) strategic plan, revised
pursuant to P.L. 1998, Chapter 764 and guidance from the Bureau of the Budget,
and provides our current strategic planning mission statement, goals, and
objectives for the 2005 – 2006 (the FY2006 and FY2007 biennium). This draft is subject to revision, as deemed
appropriate, based on input from the Legislature and other stakeholders.
The
Commission’s strategic planning mission statement is:
The
Maine Public Utilities Commission regulates utilities to ensure that safe, adequate
and reliable utility services are available to Maine customers at rates that
are just and reasonable for both customers and public utilities. For the purposes of this document, “utility
services” means electric, gas, telecommunications and water services.
The
Commission’s goals, derived directly from statute, are:
To
assure safe, reasonable, and adequate electric utility services at rates which
are just and reasonable.
and,
To
develop and implement electric energy conservation programs… (that must be)
consistent with the objectives of an overall energy strategy developed by the
Commission and be cost effective.
This
strategic plan continues to reflect our preference for competition and market
mechanisms to meet our goals to reduce the costs of utility services and to
provide superior service quality and reliability for consumers. Meeting our goals will help to improve
Maine’s regional, national, and global competitiveness and improve its business
climate and overall economic health.
II. ANALYSIS
OF ENVIRONMENT
In this
section we briefly discuss the Commission’s evolving mandate, analyze the
trends that shape the Commission’s ability to carry out its duties, and
summarize some of the Commission’s recent responses to the changing regulatory
environment.
A. Commission Profile
The
Commission was created in 1913 to regulate monopoly providers of essential
services identified by the Legislature.
The Commission’s activities are governed by Title 35-A of the Maine
Revised Statutes. Section 101 of Title
35-A provides that “[t]he basic purpose of this regulatory system is to assure
safe, reasonable and adequate service at rates which are just and reasonable to
customers and public utilities.” MRSA
35-A §3211-A requires that ”the
commission shall develop and, to extent of available funds, implement
conservation programs…consistent with the objectives and overall energy
strategy developed by the commission and be cost effective…” The Commission is
working to meet the requirements of this mandated program.
Three
Commissioners, who are nominated by the Governor and confirmed by the
Legislature, head the Commission. The
Governor designates one of the Commissioners as Chairman. The Commissioners serve staggered six-year
terms.
The
Commission, which is authorized 67 full-time positions, currently employees 60
full-time employees. These employees
are allocated among the Commission’s six divisions: Legal, Finance, Technical
Analysis, Consumer Assistance, Energy Programs, and Administrative.
As of
December 31, 2004 there were nearly 645 certified public utilities in the State
of Maine over which the Commission has jurisdiction. These public utilities fall into the following categories:
Electric 13
Communications:
Local Exchange Carriers 23
Interexchange Carriers 212
Competitive Local 13
Competitive Local and IXC 66
Facilities Based IXC 16
COCOTs[1] 132
Gas 3
Water 154
Water Carriers 13
______________
Total 645
The
Commission continues to process new requests for authority to provide utility
service, particularly from telecommunication carriers.
The Commission had three sources of funding in FY04: a Regulatory Fund, funding for Efficiency
Maine, and a federally fund State Energy Program Grant. Funding for the Regulatory Fund and
Efficiency Maine are derived from an assessment on utilities pursuant to 35-A
M.R.S.A. § 116. In FY04, the
Commission was authorized to spend $6,435,212 from its Regulatory Fund and
actually spent $5,379,918. We were
authorized to expend $7,690,314 for Efficiency Maine, and spent
$4,500,353. The State Energy Program was
authorized to expend $1,884,568 in federal grant money and actually spent
$770,340. The difference in authorized
versus actual expenditures in this program is largely due to encumbrances that
will be paid in FY2005
During the
first 11 months of 2004, the Commission had docketed 809 cases and closed 791
with approximately 171 pending on December 21, 2004. During 2003, the Commission docketed 919 cases and closed
1007. See Chart 1 (MPUC Docketed Case
Trend, 1983 to present).
B.
External Assessment:
The events
of September 11, 2001 have prompted a need for utility regulators throughout
the country to work more closely with our federal and state counterparts, and
with the utility industry as a whole, to ensure that the critical utility
infrastructures that we rely on are less vulnerable to such attacks. We are participating in the New
England Governor’s Conference and Maine Emergency Management Agency’s (MEMA’s)
emergency planning efforts and have expanded our ability to meet any security
challenges that may arise in the state or region. Our role is to ensure that utilities are adequately prepared to
meet the threat of terrorist attacks, winter fuel shortages, or drastic price
spikes, so that, to the extent possible, harm and dislocation to Maine’s
citizens and businesses may be avoided or mitigated. We are continually working to improve communications with all of
our utility sectors. We are active on
the MEMA Emergency Response Team (ERT)
and have developed internal emergency response plans that will allow us to
response more quickly to any events that may occur and are participating in
routine and major exercises of the State’s emergency response
capabilities. We continue to expand our
Geographical Information Systems (GIS) capabilities. This technology is growing in importance as federal, state, and
local governments move to improve their ability to respond to catastrophic
events either man-made or naturally caused.
I. Electric Industry
During its 1997 session, the Legislature enacted P.L. 1997, ch. 306, codified at 35-A M.R.S.A. §3201-3217 (the Restructuring Act), which directed comprehensive restructuring of Maine’s electric utility industry. Since then, the Public Utilities Commission (Commission) has disaggregated the vertically integrated electric utilities into delivery and generation functions, established the rates of transmission and distribution (T&D) utilities, established rules that govern the activities of competitive electricity providers and utilities, purchased standard offer service through competitive bid processes, monitored retail market development, and participated in regional wholesale market activities that affect Maine’s electricity consumers.
Electricity
prices include four distinct components – transmission rates, distribution
rates, stranded cost rates, and energy prices.
The first three, bundled together, comprise the rate charged by the
transmission and distribution (T&D) utility. Transmission rates cover the cost of constructing and operating
the transmission system and are regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC). Distribution rates
cover costs incurred by the T&D utility to construct and operate the local
distribution system and are regulated by the Public Utilities Commission
(Commission). Stranded cost rates
reflect the net, above-market costs for generation obligations that utilities
incurred prior to industry restructuring, and are regulated by the Commission. Finally, energy prices are unregulated retail
prices charged for generation service by competitive electricity providers
(CEPs) that, in Maine’s restructured environment, operate in the competitive
market. The Commission licenses CEPs. Consumers may obtain generation service
directly from a competitive market provider or through standard offer service
that is obtained by the Commission through a competitive bid process.
The Commission prefers incentive rate plans to traditional rate-of-return regulation as the best means to ensure that customers receive adequate T&D service at just and reasonable rates, and has implemented incentive rate plans for the distribution rates of the two largest T & D utilities in Maine, Central Maine Power Company and Bangor Hydro-Electric Company. The Commission has taken steps to ensure that the utilities subject to incentive rate plans maintain an adequate level of service quality. Due to the passage of P. L. 2003, c. 45, section 1, the Commission must conduct a rate-of-return rate case for CMP and BHE before extending the current or implementing a new incentive rate plan.
The Restructuring Act allows CMP, BHE and MPS to recover stranded costs in the rates they charge for delivery service. Stranded costs reflect the net, above-market costs for generation obligations that utilities incurred prior to industry restructuring. For example, stranded costs include the difference between payments the utilities must make pursuant to pre-existing purchased power contracts (primarily with qualifying facilities (QFs)) and the current market value of that power. Stranded cost rates are re-set for CMP, BHE and MPS every two to three years. The adjustments coincide with the sale terms of the utilities’ QF entitlements, because the amounts received from the entitlements sales offset stranded costs and are a significant component of total stranded cost rates.
Because of the nature of stranded costs, it is not possible to set
stranded cost rates using an incentive mechanism. Therefore, the Commission must conduct traditional,
rate-of-return rate cases to set stranded cost rates every two or three years
(albeit on a smaller scale). Stranded
costs are declining, but are expected to remain significant until at least
2015.
After almost five years of operation, the retail market for Maine’s medium commercial and industrial (C&I) and large C&I customers[2] has exhibited a reasonable level of competitive activity, and bidding for standard offer service has been healthy. In addition to attracting a significant number of bidders, the standard offer process resulted in different providers winning the bids during each of the solicitations in 2004. Increases in the cost of wholesale electricity, largely caused by increases in natural gas prices, have caused Maine’s CEP and standard offer prices to increase.
The market continued to offer minimal competitive choice for residential and small commercial customers, but a low standard offer price obtained in previous years contributed to relatively low overall electricity prices. The current arrangement for residential and small commercial standard offer service for BHE and CMP will terminate in 2005, and the Commission recently conducted a bid process to obtain residential and small commercial standard offer service for a term beginning March 1, 2005. Competition among standard offer service bidders remained vigorous in the CMP and BHE territory during the recent bidding process, although standard offer prices will be higher beginning on March 1, 2005 because of the wholesale price increases. The Commission adopted a three-year staggered approach by also accepting bids for a portion of the standard offer load for the 12-month periods beginning March 1, 2006 and March 1, 2007. The Commission will procure the remainder prior to the start of each period. This approach will help moderate volatility in standard offer prices resulting from future changes in wholesale prices, but will require the Commission to conduct a bid process annually for the residential and small commercial customers.
During 2003, “green” products, featuring hydroelectric and biomass
generation, became available through residential and public sector aggregation
groups. In early 2004, additional green
supply options were developed, including products containing wind generation
and low-impact hydroelectric generation, and by the end of 2004, six
green generation products were available to Maine consumers. These activities
have continued a modest but steady gain in recognition and customer
support. Over 5,000 customers currently
purchase green power products, and a number of well-known businesses, as well
as the State of Maine, have publicly announced green purchases.
The
wholesale market operates under a set of rules approved by the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC). New
England’s Independent System Operator, ISO New England (ISO-NE), is the
day-to-day operator of the electric grid and the generation markets. ISO-NE, in turn, operates under contract
with the New England Power Pool (NEPOOL), a New England organization comprised
of generators, competitive electricity providers, T&D utilities, municipal
electric systems, and representatives of end-use customers. NEPOOL or ISO-NE files changes to market
rules for approval by FERC. These
changes are developed through NEPOOL committees, each of which is chaired by
ISO-NE. In some cases, these filings
have close to unanimous support. In
others, there is a wide range of conflicting positions. While the Commission is not a NEPOOL member,
it often takes an active role in the committees. The Commission also intervenes and takes positions at FERC on
matters affecting (1) the competitiveness of the wholesale electric markets,
(2) reliability, and (3) prices paid by Maine electricity consumers. The Commission anticipates that our work at
ISO and FERC will continue for at least the next few years while the
competitive market issues are being resolved.
The “northern”
Maine region presents unique electricity reliability and market issues. By northern Maine, we mean the service areas
of MPS and three consumer-owned utilities: Houlton Water Company, Van Buren
Light and Power District, and Eastern Maine Electric Cooperative.[3] In contrast to the rest of Maine, which is
electrically part of the ISO-NE region, northern Maine is electrically part of
the Canadian Maritimes region. The
Maritimes region also includes the electric loads and generation of New
Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Prince Edward Island. Load and generation in northern Maine are connected to the rest
of Maine and New England only by transmission through New Brunswick. Northern Maine load is supplied by a
combination of generating plants located in-region and in New Brunswick. The Northern Maine Independent System
Administration (NMISA) administers the bulk power and transmission systems for
the region.
There have been only two suppliers active in the northern Maine
retail market since retail access began – Energy Atlantic (EA) and WPS Energy
Services, Inc. (WPS-ESI). Energy
Atlantic no longer accepts new customers in northern Maine and WPS-ESI has been
the primary standard offer service provider in all rate groups since
restructuring began. Thus, the retail
market in northern Maine is considerably less competitive than the market in
the remainder of the State. While it
does not appear that this has resulted in higher prices for consumers, it is a
subject of concern.
Measures that would make northern Maine part of a larger market (e.g., a
transmission line connecting northern Maine to the New England grid or an open
market in New Brunswick) may result in increased interest in the region by
competitive electricity providers.
During 2004, MPS announced plans to increase the capacity of generation
that could flow between MPS and New Brunswick by increasing the transmission
capacity between the two regions from 200 to 250 MW.[4] This would improve the ability of generation
located in southern New England and New Brunswick to reach northern Maine,
thereby potentially increasing the number of suppliers willing to serve the
northern Maine market. The
Commission is reviewing the MPS proposal.
In
addition, BHE has filed for permission to build a second tie-line between New
Brunswick and the ISO-NE grid. The proposed tie-line would increase the
north-to-south capacity from 700 to 1000 MWs and the south-to-north capacity
from 100 to 400 MWs. Under BHE’s
proposal, the tie-line would run through northern Maine but would have no
connection to the grid in northern Maine.
The line could, however, advantage northern Maine by allowing more
electricity to flow between New England and New Brunswick. Furthermore, the new line would provide the
opportunity for future construction to link the line with the northern Maine
grid. The Commission is reviewing this
BHE proposal.
Finally, in the second session of the 120th
Legislature, the Legislature passed P.L. 2001, ch. 624, (the Electric Energy
Conservation Act), directing the Commission to develop and implement cost
effective electric energy conservation programs. The Commission responded by implementing 12 interim programs that
resulted in 5,827 MWh of annual energy savings to Maine consumers. From 2003 to 2004, the Commission
streamlined and converted the 12 interim programs to 6 ongoing programs. The estimated annual savings from the first
year of on going program operation is 17,918 MWh. More detail on the structure of each program and individual
program budgets can be found in the Commission’s Efficiency Maine 2004 Annual Report.
2. Telecommunications Industry
Since the passage of the federal
Telecommunication Act of 1996 (TelAct), the Commission has been dealing with
significant changes in the telecommunications industry, and the level and pace
of change show no signs of abating. The
telecommunications industry has undergone major changes in its operations and
structure, driven by changes in technology, customer expectations, and public
policy, as evinced through regulatory mechanisms. The breakup of AT&T in 1984 largely paved the way for the
opening of the toll market to competition. The purpose of the TelAct is to
transform the local exchange market into a competitive environment through: 1)
interconnection of facilities based competitors’ networks to the incumbent
local exchange carrier’s (ILEC) network; 2) resale of the service provided by
the ILEC; and 3) use of elements of the ILEC’s network by competitors in
conjunction with some facilities provided by the competitors themselves.
The TelAct established the general principles for competition,
but it left to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and state regulatory
agencies, such as the Maine Commission, the responsibility to determine the
specific policies and rules needed to implement the law. This lack of specificity has created
tremendous uncertainty and led to continuing controversy about how the TelAct
should be interpreted and implemented.
The FCC has issued numerous orders attempting to codify the rules under
which ILECs, primarily the former Regional Bell Operating Companies (RBOCs),
must allow Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (CLECs) to enter the local
market. Unfortunately, the language of
the TelAct as enacted resulted from numerous compromises by competing political
interests and is not a model of clarity.
Therefore, nearly all FCC decisions that attempted to interpret and
implement the principles of the TelAct were appealed to federal courts. The ILECs, CLECs, state regulators and
telecommunications users have sought court review of various aspects of the
FCC’s decisions. The federal Circuit
Courts and the U.S. Supreme Court have, at various times, upheld, vacated and
remanded parts of all the FCC orders.
This constant battling at the FCC and in the federal courts has created
shifting legal and policy foundations for the implementation duties that must
be carried out by state regulators.
The most recent attempt by the
FCC to establish rules for local competition came in the form of the Triennial
Review Order (TRO), issued in August 2003.
In the TRO the FCC attempted to respond to mandates established in
decisions rendered by the U. S. Supreme Court and the D.C. Circuit Court of
Appeals in cases involving appeals of earlier FCC orders. As with the other FCC orders, various
parties immediately filed appeals with the D.C. Circuit Court. In March 2004, the D.C. Court issued its
opinion in which it upheld, remanded and vacated various portions of the
TRO. Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court
refused to accept the D.C. Circuit Court decision for review, thus allowing the
Circuit Court decision to become final.
In response to the Court’s vacate and remand decisions, the FCC issued a
set of Interim Rules that are designed to be in place only until the FCC can
attempt once again to issue permanent rules that will pass muster with the courts.
In addition to the uncertainty
created by the FCC and court actions, there is speculation among many industry
participants and observers that Congress might modify the TelAct in its next
session. Thus, the Commission is faced
with the potential for even greater upheaval in the legal and policy bases on
which it conducts its required functions in implementing the TelAct.
The TelAct allowed Verizon, as
an RBOC, to enter the business of originating interLATA telecommunications
traffic in Maine only after it proved that the local exchange market in Maine
was fully and irreversibly open to competition. While the FCC has authority under the TelAct to grant interLATA
entry, the FCC must consult with the affected state regulatory agency and the
United States Department of Justice prior to approving the application. With the Commission’s support, Verizon filed
its application to offer interLATA services in Maine with the FCC on March 19,
2002. On June 19, 2002, the FCC granted
Verizon’s request. Since then, Verizon
has offered interLATA (in addition to intraLATA) toll service to customers in
Maine. The ability of Verizon to offer
a combined package of local and toll services benefits telecommunications users
in Maine because it provides more choices and increases competition.
A key condition of the
Commission’s decision to support Verizon’s request for interLATA authority was
the adoption of a Performance Assurance Plan (PAP) that sets standards against
which the Company’s performance in meeting its obligations to CLECs is
measured. The PAP is intended to
prevent “backsliding“ on the part of Verizon after it gained interLATA
authority and contains performance standards and applies automatic penalties if
Verizon fails to meet the standards for over 200 individual performance metrics
involving virtually all aspects of the process by which CLECs order and Verizon
provisions and maintains service to end user customers of the CLECs, using some
or all parts of Verizon’s facilities and equipment. The Commission adopted a PAP modeled after one previously adopted
in other states served by Verizon, but with some unique statistical methods
used to measure the Company’s performance.
The Commission has monitored the workings of the PAP and is in the
process of evaluating the results in order to determine if changes in any
aspect of the PAP may be necessary.
The establishment of the rates that Verizon charges CLECs for the use of portions of its network created considerable controversy. Those network pieces are known as unbundled network elements (UNEs), and the economic principle established by the FCC for setting their prices is known as the total element long-run incremental cost (TELRIC). The Commission employed FCC guidelines to set TELRIC-based rates for UNEs in Maine just prior to the time that it recommended that the FCC approve Verizon’s request for interLATA authority. UNE pricing is an important input into most competitors’ cost of service. Because most CLECs use some UNEs in providing their service, and UNE rates help determine whether competitive entry will occur in the State, in setting UNE prices, the Commission balanced the competing interests of Verizon and the CLECs.
The increase in competition has
caused a dramatic shift in the type of cases that the Commission must
decide. Today, rate cases are limited
to certain situations that will be described below. Instead, the Commission spends considerably more time addressing issues
related to competition and the associated terms and conditions applicable to
wholesale services provided by Verizon to CLECs who want to compete. Currently each CLEC operating in Maine has
an agreement with Verizon that sets out the prices (based on the Commission’s
UNE pricing order) and the terms and conditions under which the CLECs can
obtain UNEs and can interconnect their networks with Verizon’s. A CLEC may opt into an existing agreement,
or it can negotiate its own with Verizon.
As part of its recommendation
that Verizon be allowed to enter the interLATA toll market, the Commission
required Verizon to file a tariff that spells out all its prices and terms and
conditions for providing wholesale services to CLECs. Having a wholesale tariff approved by the Commission would alleviate
the need for CLECs to negotiate individual interconnection agreements with
Verizon. Verizon initially made its
wholesale tariff filing over two years ago, but because of numerous changes in
federal rules and policies (as discussed earlier), as well as other intervening
cases with shorter deadlines, the tariff has been revised several times, and
the Commission has not yet been able to bring the matter to a conclusion. The parties have now identified the issues
that must be decided, and the Commission will move forward to complete the
wholesale tariff case in a timely fashion, so that current and potential
competitors will be able to know with certainty the UNEs that are available,
and the prices and terms and conditions under which they are available. As described earlier, the standards established
by the FCC for the provision of UNEs are not completely settled, and future
actions by the FCC, federal courts and/or Congress could again disturb the
underpinnings of the wholesale competition.
Maine CLECs have shown interest
in competing in an economically rational fashion and in bringing voice and
broadband services to all parts of Maine.
In order to do so, the CLECs need access to some specific parts of
Verizon’s network, but the rules governing the provision of those elements are
not completely settled, and the FCC is in the process of re-writing its
rules. We will do our best to interpret
the rules and adjust to any changes that occur. We will also use our authority under State law to require that
certain UNEs be made available, even when those elements are not required under
federal rules, if we determine that their availability is a necessary
ingredient for local competition in Maine.
Of course, the Commission cannot contravene federal law or FCC rules,
but we will make independent choices to implement the Maine Legislative policy
of bringing advanced telecommunications services to residents of all areas of
the State.
The increase in competition in
the telecommunications industry has also created some challenges for consumers,
who are vulnerable to a very small, but highly visible, number of unscrupulous
competitors. The two most common
tactics used by these types of companies are known as “slamming” (the
unauthorized switching of a customer from one carrier to another) and
“cramming” (the inclusion of unauthorized charges on a customer’s bill). Both slamming and cramming are illegal, but
the added complexity of the telecommunications marketplace and the
proliferation of new carriers and services create an environment that can be
exploited by these unscrupulous carriers.
The Commission spends a considerable amount of time and resources to
investigate claims of slamming and cramming by customers and to stop the
activities and gain restitution for the effected customers. The Commission will increase its efforts in
these areas as necessary. As
competition replaces the old monopoly regime in telecommunications, providing
information to customers about their options and about potential dangers will
be one of the most important functions performed by the Commission.
35-A M.R.S.A. § 7101-B required
that, beginning in 1999 and every two years thereafter, the Commission set the
intrastate access charges that interexchange carriers pay equal to or less than
the interstate access charges that the FCC establishes. In 1998, the Commission approved a
stipulation with Verizon that implemented the first required reduction in
access charges and simultaneously increased basic rates to allow Verizon to
recover a portion of the lost access revenue.
In 2001, the Commission, as part of its AFOR renewal for Verizon,
allowed another relatively small local rate increase to offset a portion of the
revenue the Company lost because of the intrastate access rate cuts that
occurred on May 30, 2001.
The access parity statute was
amended in 2003, allowing the Commission to spread out the required 2003
intrastate access rate reduction over two years, or until May 2005. If any local rate increase needed to offset
the access rate reduction exceeds 50% (including the Maine USF), the Commission
is required to phase in the access reduction and the local rate increase. If interstate access rates are reduced below
the January 2003 levels, the Commission can order additional reductions to
intrastate access rates, but it must consider the effect on local rates before
implementing the rate changes.
For Verizon, the Commission
approved a phase-in of the access rate reductions and the local rate increases
during 2004 and 2005, as permitted under the statute. The local rate increase is considered an exogenous change under
Verizon’s AFOR. The AFOR itself is
scheduled to expire in June 2006, and during 2005, the Commission will begin to
examine the form of regulation that will apply to Verizon after the current
plan ends. The future regulatory scheme
will be influenced by many factors, including competition and technological
changes.
For the independent telephone companies (ITCs), the access rate
reductions have been implemented with a series of stipulations that took into
account the earnings of each ITC.
Companies with “excess” earnings prior to the date of the initial access
rate reductions generally agreed not to file rate cases to recover the lost
revenue for a certain period of time after the access reductions. ITCs without over earnings were allowed to
phase in the initial round of access rates reductions while the Commission
completed work on the Maine Universal Service Fund (MUSF). Under the amended statute, rate realignments
will continue with access rate reductions and local rate increases occurring
through May 2005. Also, as discussed below, basic service
calling areas (BSCA) have been modified to bring more uniformity throughout the
State, and rate groups (based on number of customers in the BSCA) have been
eliminated. In order to offset the
revenue losses caused by the access reductions, BSCA modifications and rate
group elimination, the Commission implemented a policy of requiring ITCs to
raise their local rates to the Verizon level before they can receive MUSF support. About half of the ITCs currently receive USF
funding for part of their revenue requirements, and some additional companies
will receive funding as access rates continue to decline, while local rates are
capped at the Verizon level. The
Commission will examine the revenue requirements situation for each of the ITCs
when it is appropriate. Companies may
seek USF support, but before it is granted, they will have to undergo some type
of earnings investigation.
The Commission contracts with an
independent Joint Administrator for the MUSF and the Maine Telecommunications
Education Access Fund (MTEAF), which provides funding for advanced
telecommunications services to schools and libraries. LECs other than Verizon obtain support from the MUSF in order to
meet their overall revenue requirements (as determined by the Commission in a
rate case or similar proceeding) while maintaining basic exchange rates that
are no higher than those charged by Verizon.
The Administrator collects assessments, including the costs associated
with administering the Fund, from all providers of intrastate
telecommunications services, including paging companies and mobile carriers, as
provided in the authorizing statute.
The size of the MUSF might gradually expand over the next several years
as more companies become eligible for support and the Commission completes the
necessary procedures to determine the amount of support needed.
During 2002, the Commission
examined the matter of BSCAs, which are sometimes referred to as extended area
service (EAS). Concerned that the BSCA
Rule did not sufficiently address the expanding calling area needs of local
telephone customers, and that there was a lack of consistency in local calling
areas around the State, the Commission adopted changes to the BSCA Rule,
Chapter 204, to resolve many of the problems that were identified. The most significant change made to the rule
required the addition of all contiguous exchanges that were not already
included in an exchange’s BSCA to the Premium option for that exchange. Adding contiguous exchanges alleviated
virtually all of the problems areas identified in the inquiry. The Commission implemented the changes
required under the revised BSCA Rule in 2003, and it will address any “outlier”
calling area situations on a case-by-case basis. In early 2005 the LECs will also file reports that show the
effect on their revenues of implementing the BSCA changes, and any required
true-up will occur shortly thereafter, most likely simultaneously with the
access reductions in May 2005.
Probably the most important
agent for change in the telecommunications industry is technology, which is
constantly providing additional choices for consumers and new challenges for
policy makers and regulators. Use of
the traditional public switched telephone network (PSTN) is declining as more
and more voice traffic and Internet access moves onto the wireless service
networks or is provided as part of broadband service. Wireless (cellular and Personal Communications Service) use has
expanded rapidly over the past five to eight years, and now there are more
wireless phones in use in Maine than there are wireline phones. The majority of wireless customers are using
those phones in addition to their wireline phones, rather than in place of
them, although there are some customers who no longer use wireline
services. As wireless phones become
even more sophisticated and add numerous features, including video and
broadband Internet access, the trend toward wireless usage will no doubt
continue. In Maine, wireless service
providers are, by law, not considered to be public utilities, except under
certain very specific instances.
Further, federal law prohibits states from regulating wireless entry or
rates, except under certain limited circumstances.
The technological change that
likely will have the greatest influence on the manner in which
telecommunications traffic is transported and regulated involves the use of
Internet protocol. Voice Over Internet
Protocol (VOIP) transforms a voice telephone conversation into packets of
digital information, similar to other Internet transmissions. The packets travel over private or public
Internet networks to their destinations, where they are assembled into a
coherent speech pattern, so they are indistinguishable from traditional
telephone service to the users on either end of the conversation. VOIP is added onto a broadband connection,
and it is a much more efficient way of transmitting voice communications,
because unlike traditional voice phone calls, an individual circuit is not kept
open for the duration of the call. As
VOIP equipment and functions improve, and more customers subscribe to a
broadband connection, additional voice traffic will very likely migrate to VOIP
service. Because VOIP telephone service
is considered part of the Internet, the FCC has declared it to be interstate in
nature, and thus out of the reach of state regulators. Further, a federal district court has
prohibited one state from regulating VOIP service in any way.
This major technological change
is likely to substantially impact the functions of the Commission, as
competition and new ways of providing services (indeed, even new services and
combinations of services) continue to alter the type and manner of regulation. Traditional monopoly regulation will
continue to be replaced by the need to educate consumers and prevent
unscrupulous, unfair and illegal competitive activities. Establishing the conditions under which
competition can flourish (the so-called “level playing field”), while
protecting the interests of customers who don’t have access to competitive
options, will become the focus of telecommunications regulators. The Commission will continue to examine
whether market forces are sufficient to bring advanced telecommunications
capabilities to all citizens of Maine, or if there are steps the Commission can
take to encourage broadband deployment.
3. Natural Gas Industry
In
1999, two new interstate pipelines, Portland Natural Gas Transmission System
(PNGTS) and Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline, began to bring increased
natural gas supplies into Maine. As a
direct result, natural gas utilities authorized to serve in Maine expanded
their facilities into several new areas in the state, including Windham,
Bucksport, Old Town, Veazie, Bangor, Brewer, Sanford, Kittery, Orono,
Brunswick, Topsham, Rumford, and Gorham.
Maine’s natural gas distribution utilities are contracting with
increasing numbers of large commercial and industrial customers that are converting
to natural gas from other fuels such as propane or oil, as well as businesses
that have chosen to expand their use of natural gas.
Since 1999,
commercial and industrial customers have been able to make competitive gas
supply arrangements, taking transportation-only service from the local
distribution utility. Significant
numbers of larger commercial and industrial customers have made the change from
obtaining gas commodity from their distribution utility in favor of competitive
options. We continue to monitor the
progress that gas supply competition is making in Maine and the region and the
affect that Maine’s current regulatory policies may be having on these
markets. Based on information we have
received to date from gas marketers, due to a number of factors including
Maine’s relatively low population density and low sales volumes per customer,
there is little interest on the part of suppliers in extending choice to
residential consumers at this time. However
marketers and suppliers are increasingly extending service to smaller
commercial entities, such as restaurants.
The new gas supplies also support
five gas-fired electric generation facilities, located in Westbrook, Bucksport,
Veazie, Rumford, and Jay, which consume a substantial portion of the natural
gas supplied to Maine and provide 1500 MW of electricity to the northeast
region. The Commission continues to
work with other agencies, both state and federal jurisdictions, involved in the
construction and regulation of these entities to ensure that we conduct
appropriate and adequate, but not onerous, public review of issues that fall
within our purview.
Due to
substantially increased natural gas prices and increased natural gas market
volatility nationwide beginning in 1999, we now actively monitor regional
supply and market conditions, as well as corresponding natural gas utility
programs, with an eye toward mitigating adverse impacts on natural gas
consumers where appropriate. In 2000,
we were directed by the Legislative Task Force to Reduce the Burden of Home
Heating Costs on Low-Income Households to monitor the issue of whether
interruptible natural gas services may adversely impact Maine’s price of home
heating oil during the winter months.
We also participated in the legislative "Study Committee on
Gasoline and Fuel Prices." During
2002 we approved Northern Utilities, Inc.’s use of financial hedging
instruments to stabilize gas commodity rates.
In 2003, we approved a budget payment program and a hedged fixed price
option for customers of Bangor Gas Company to offer customers predictable
monthly payment options. In early 2004,
we also approved a hedged fixed price option for customers of Maine Natural
Gas.
We are participating in the New
England Governor’s Conference and Maine Emergency Management Agency emergency
planning efforts being coordinated throughout the state and region. Our role is to ensure that utilities are
adequately prepared to meet the threat of terrorist attacks, winter fuel
shortages, or drastic price spikes, so that, to the extent possible, harm and
dislocation to Maine’s citizens and businesses may be avoided or
mitigated. In January 2004, during
extremely cold weather, the New England region only narrowly met its natural
gas and electricity demands. This
realization has prompted efforts among gas and electricity purveyors and state
and federal regulators to assess what can be done to ensure the reliability of
these services during extreme conditions.
We will continue to consider such matters as which gas users have
priority in the event of a supply shortage to the region and how the demand for
electric generation can be better coordinated with gas heating needs. We are participating in the Maritimes &
Northeast Pipeline rate case in an effort to ensure that Maine's consumers'
interests are represented.
Working with the federal Office
of Pipeline Safety (OPS), we are continue to ensure compliance with vital
safety standards in the construction and operation of natural gas, propane, and
liquefied natural gas facilities. In
1999, the legislature gave “Dig Safe” underground facilities safety enforcement
responsibility to the Commission. The Commission adopted a new rule, Chapter
895, outlining the underground facilities safety requirements and our newly implemented
enforcement procedures. In 2001, based
on our growing experience the law, we proposed several amendments to improve
the practical workings of the "Dig Safe" law that were adopted by the
legislature. In July 2004, we completed
a Legislative directive to develop procedural exemptions for drinking water
well constructors in our rule. This
year we expect to seek additional amendments to the law to enhance its safety
benefits. We expect to prosecute
approximately 400 enforcement actions this year for damage prevention incidents
where violations have been indicated.
Many of these violators, both excavators and underground facility
operators, are required to attend training sessions conducted by our Damage
Prevention Inspectors to increase their working knowledge of the damage
prevention law, thereby reducing further violations. We scheduled 21 training sessions with 938 individuals enrolled
throughout the state during 2004 and expect to repeat this effort in 2005.
The Commission’s gas safety
inspector also holds training sessions for propane system operators to inform
them of federal and state safety code requirements and is in the process of
locating and inspecting systems that exist within Maine to ensure their
compliance. To date, we have identified
and inspected (or reinspected) over 650 jurisdictional propane facilities
located within Maine. We produced a
“Model Operations, Maintenance and Emergency Plan” to assist propane facility
operators achieve compliance.
In recent years, Maine's natural
gas and electric utilities have increasingly been acquired by or have merged
with larger regional energy corporations.
The effects of these mergers often require that we monitor customer
service and safety standards to ensure that the utility meets adequate
levels. When standards are not met, we
develop regulatory incentive mechanisms and other interventions to effect
improvement or maintenance of customer service and safety standards to offset
the cost-cutting pressures that the parent entity places on the local utility
subsidiary. In this regard, we recently
initiated a management audit of Northern Utilities, Inc.'s customer services
and are reviewing its service contracts with affiliates, NiSource Corporate Service
Corporation and Bay State Gas Company.
In addition, we have developed a bare steel facility integrity ranking
system and are working to determine what level of cast iron pipe replacement
may be warranted. We continue to
consider developing performance-based regulatory mechanisms for Maine’s largest
gas distribution company, consistent with our treatment of both start-up
companies now operating in the state.
Finally, we have been reviewing
costs associated with proposed environmental remediation plans for two
manufactured gas plant locations owned by Northern Utilities that have been
developed under the Department of Environmental Protection's Voluntary Response
Action Program.
4. Water Industry
Title 35-A
M.R.S.A guides our oversight of water utilities. The effects of the federal Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)
Amendments of 1987, which raised costs for many small systems dramatically,
have dominated our activity in this area.
The passage of the SDWA Amendments of 1996 gave more flexibility and
time to meet its requirements; nevertheless, compliance continues to require
significant rate increases to cover the increased capital costs and expenses.
Since the
early 1990’s, the Commission has supported legislation to remove water
utilities from its regulatory authority.
These attempts, whether initiated by the water utility industry or the
Commission, have failed. During the
first regular session of the 120th Legislature, legislation that
would have allowed water utilities to “opt-out” of our regulatory oversight was
also defeated. We do not expect further
efforts to reform the law in the near future.
Our regulatory involvement will thus continue to be focused on
ratemaking for the investor-owned utilities, and on technical assistance and
limited ratemaking oversight (where customers petition for our review) of
consumer or municipally owned water utilities.
This means that we will continue to apply traditional rate of return
regulation to the few remaining investor-owned water utilities, and the
consumer-owned water utilities will continue to set their own rates, subject to
Commission review only when customers petition the Commission.
5. Consumer Assistance
The Commission’s Consumer Assistance Division (CAD) is the Commission’s
primary link with customers. The CAD is
charged with ensuring that consumers, utilities, and the public receive fair
and equitable treatment through education, resolution of complaints, and
evaluation of utility compliance with consumer protection rules. Furthermore, with ratemaking authority, the
Commission can take actions that have a direct financial impact on a utility
with significant customer complaint problems.
In addition, some utilities are under alternative rate plans that
contain expected performance thresholds for customer complaints. These utilities may incur administrative
penalties for failure to achieve established performance expectations.
As competitive markets have begun to develop for utility services the
number of consumer complaints has increased.
Assisting consumers to avoid or resolve disputes with competitive
service providers has required a new approach Consumer specialists must now
focus on the needs (e.g. for information) of those who receive service in
addition to the activities of those who provide it. Consumer specialists will need new skills to adapt to these
changes.
Along with the traditional intake function, additional investigation and
mediation will be necessary. The
Commission and the CAD will have to respond quickly to unfair and deceptive
marketing and advertising practices.
More customer complaint data must be compiled and published. This will require increased cross-divisional
interaction to ensure that competitive providers are complying with the
Commission’s rules and providers’ licenses.
Lacking the leverage that comes with ratemaking authority, the
Commission will have to make greater use of traditional enforcement
approaches. To this end, CAD staff have
increased their skills in the area of enforcement investigations and have used
these skills to conduct several investigations that have resulted in the
assessment of administrative penalties in the millions of dollars by the
Commission.
Competition is expected to increase consumer welfare by providing lower
prices and better quality service. For
competition to be successful, customers must be knowledgeable. Accordingly, the Commission must work to
educate consumers so that they are better able to take advantage of
opportunities in the marketplace.
Customers, who have depended on public utility regulation as a proxy for
making choices, will not quickly and easily become fully informed
consumers. Transitional markets in the
telecommunications industry have provided us with evidence that there may be
more opportunities for consumer fraud than in fully developed markets. As our utility markets reach maturity, we
hope that consumer protection activity will be reduced, although we do not
expect it can ever be eliminated. As
the Commission’s link with the public, the responsibility for educating consumers
will reside primarily with the CAD.
C. Internal Assessment
With such
fundamental changes occurring in the industries we regulate and the way we
regulate those industries, the Commission continually reviews its staff
resources to ensure that we are able to make the decisions and implement the
policies necessary to meet our mission.
We also recognize that the public expects efficiency in state
government. Even if industry
restructuring and the move to more competitive markets increase our workload
during the transition, we will minimize any request for additional resources
from the Legislature. This will require
closer coordination with other agencies in Maine government, such as the Bureau
of the Budget, the Office of the Public Advocate, the State Planning Office,
and the University System.
Achieving efficiencies requires
innovative administrative processes.
The quasi-judicial rate case process is likely to be too cumbersome and
too complex to perform many of the new regulatory functions. As market issues continue to replace
regulatory issues, we expect that the Commission will find a greater need to
use different techniques, including alternative dispute resolution (ADR), and
streamlined approaches that emphasize oral argument rather than cross-examination
of witnesses. Collaboration can
introduce creativity into many areas of regulatory decision-making. Through collaboration, the Commission can
gain a deeper and more detailed understanding of the objectives of all
stakeholders and engage in discussions that move outside the boundaries of
specific events.
In transitioning to competitive utility
markets, the Commission increasingly uses ADR-like processes, such as technical
and settlement conferences. We must
have the flexibility to continue to use ADR and other collaborative
administrative processes if we are to achieve our new regulatory objectives
within existing resources. As the same
time we must develop administrative processes to enforce statutes and rules
against providers that are not rate regulated.
Before competition, rate regulation was the only enforcement mechanism
needed. Because enforcement actions are often “punitive,” the Commission will
need the authority and expertise to perform our quasi-judicial role. The following are among some of the
processes the Commission is adopting to meet these challenges.
1. Alternative Ways to Process Cases
The
Commission processes a wide variety of cases.
Some cases require complex litigation with many procedural safeguards
for the litigants; other cases require much less process. Where the Commission has broad discretion
over the process, we employ alternative procedures to maximize efficiency while
ensuring due process and a reasonable outcome.
For example, when possible, the Commission employs a non-adjudicatory
mode, such as a rulemaking or inquiries.
Employing a non-adjudicatory process allows the Commissioners direct
access to all assigned staff and allows all staff to participate jointly in the
case.
In cases that require an adjudicatory
process, the Commission uses alternative procedural mechanisms within the
litigation mode, such as the expanded use of technical conferences, written
filings in lieu of evidentiary hearings, and depositions instead of
cross-examinations. This reduces the
demands on the resources of the Commission and other litigants while still
satisfying due process requirements.
2. Use of the “Hot Bench”
Prior to the
late 1990’s, in adjudicatory proceedings, the Commission had historically assigned
two staff teams: an advocate staff to
participate in the building of the record and, because the law requires the
separation of the advocate and advisor functions, a separate advisor staff to
assist the Commissioners in reviewing the complex record.
In virtually
all adjudicatory cases, advisors are performing the key functions traditionally
performed by advocates. This “hot
bench” approach, started in late 1996, provides for a more efficient use of
staff resources available to the Commission, and has proved successful at
reducing the need for more staff resources.
The Commission will continue to use this model and to improve it where
necessary, to ensure the efficient and effective disposition of adjudicatory
cases.
The
Commission anticipates a continuing increase in the use of more of its
resources for non-traditional enforcement proceedings as has occurred in the
past two years. These proceedings
involve allegations against entities for violations of statutes or Commission
rules for which the appropriate remedy is a monetary penalty or the removal of
authority to do business in Maine. In
these cases, the Commission assigns a staff person to act in the
“prosecutorial” role to investigate alleged violations and to bring actions
against those responsible in situation that involve potential fines or the loss
of authority to conduct business in Maine.
For the most part the prosecutorial staff will be used in cases
involving slamming and Dig-Safe enforcement.
3. Additional Organizational and
Technological Changes
The
Commission continually reviews our day-to-day operations to identify
organizational and technological changes to make the Commission more efficient
while maintaining or improving our effectiveness. We regularly reassign staff and redefine tasks for certain
employees. We also continue to review
new technology for its application at the Commission to improve the operating
efficiency and the quality of the service that we provide to our external and
internal customers. Advances include:
(1) Our website
now makes the Commission the most publicly accessible agency in Maine state
government. This site, updated daily,
provides full-time access to information that the public wants, i.e.,
deliberation agendas, orders, rules, reports, and other documents. The site served as the primary,
“up-to-the-minute” communication medium between the Commission and potential
bidders during the “standard offer” bid process.
(2) Our Internet
broadcasts of our deliberations and hearings are extremely popular and remove
the requirement for those that want to listen to our processes to come to our
office, and just as importantly, if you miss the broadcast, we archive them for
use by the public at a later time.
(3) Our “Virtual
Case File” allows access to all Commission documents (except for confidential
material) to the public 24 hours a day, seven days a weeks for the convenience
of a citizen’s use at his home or office.
We are currently working to allow for confidential materials to be
placed on our website, accessible only with the appropriate access codes.
(4) Our electronic
filing system has significantly reduced the amount of paper filed to the
Commission. Furthermore, the amount of
resources spent by those who have frequent business with the Commission has
been reduced significantly. This is due
to the ready 24/7 access to Commission information. All aspects of the Commission’s activities are now available on
the world-wide-web.
(5) Our “Virtual
Tariffs File” provides the public with access to all Maine utility tariffs over
the Internet. As competition comes to our utilities, the public is now able to
compare tariffs to decide which service is best suited to their needs.
(6) Our
telecommuting program provides efficiencies for our staff and the Commission. This program currently limits telecommuting
to a maximum of two days per week.
Telecommuting staff has access to the office via modem and telephone,
and are able to conduct their work in the “virtual office” at home, as if they
were at work, and maintain access to resources and staff at the main Commission
offices.
(7) We are
investing a significant effort in enhancing our Geographic Information System
(GIS). We expect this effort to improve
our ability to monitor our utilities and respond to catastrophic natural or
manmade events with greater speed and at lower costs. This long-term effort will provide the Commission with greater
operational efficiencies, increased capabilities to explain or educate Mainers
about our work, and greater abilities to provide timely and more understandable
information to the Legislature and major issues that are affecting utilities in
Maine.
We are
continuing to work with national and regional organizations to develop
mechanisms to use new technology to improve how public utility regulatory
commission interact and communicate.
Improvements in this area will help us provide for better oversight of
our utility service providers, especially in the transition to well-developed
markets for these services.
These changes help the Commission oversee the provision of service, rates, and practices of the utilities authorized to provide service to customers within the state and address related public concerns and informational needs at reduced costs.
The
Commission is committed to a continual review of new technology in an effort to
reduce operating costs, increase our productivity and improve the quality of
our customer service.
III. GOALS, OBJECTIVES, STRATEGIES, MEASURES
The
Commission’s strategic planning mission statement is:
The
Maine Public Utilities Commission regulates utilities to ensure that safe,
adequate and reliable utility services are available to Maine customers at
rates that are just and reasonable for both customers and public utilities. For the purposes of this document, “utility
services” means electric, gas, telecommunications and water services.
Our goals and associated objectives
for our programs are:
Program: Maine Public Utilities Commission Regulatory
Fund - Administration
Goal: To assure safe, reasonable and adequate
utility services at rates which are just and reasonable.
Objective: Assure the provision of utility services
that meet customer needs at prices that are at or below the national
average.
Strategy: Oversee the reliability and quality of
utility services in Maine while implementing the legislative policies for
utility regulation.
Measures: (1) price of
utility services in Maine as a percentage of the national average for
comparable services
(2) number of utility service
complaints made to the Commission
(3) number of utility service
interruptions
(4) number of consumer accidents
related to utilities
(5) satisfaction with the
Commission’s service as expressed as a ratio of the number of CAD cases appealed/year
to the number of cases resolved (this measure is being reviewed and may be
replaced with one that better reflects satisfaction with Commission services
using actual survey data)
Program: Maine’s Electric Energy Conservation Fund
Goal: To
develop and implement electric energy conservation programs that increase the
efficiency of electricity use in Maine in an equitable manner.
Objective:
To provide cost-effective programs that
conserve electric energy and meet the specific constituency targets established
by the Legislature.
Strategy: (1) Define
an overall electric energy strategy for Maine and determine which
cost-effective electric energy conservation programs to implement, while
providing extensive public involvement throughout the process.
Measures: [Being Developed]
The
Commission has determined that pursuing each of these initiatives is an
efficient use of the our Regulatory Fund, the Efficiency Maine funds, and the
State Energy Program federal grant, and, that service to external and internal
customers will improve as a result of the implementation of these initiatives.
This year we are using Maine data only to provide information on our price measures. We will provide measures using the Energy Information Agency’s (EIA’s) database when we are confident in the numbers that they are using.
Total
Electricity Prices (Nominal Dollars)
Transmission and Distribution (T&D) Prices (Real Year 2000 Dollars)
This year we are using Maine data only to provide information on our price measures. We will provide measures using the Energy Information Agency’s (EIA’s) database when we are confident in the numbers that they are using.
Communication with the Office of Pipeline Safety (2004)
|
Home Exchange (Company) |
County
|
1994 Local Calling Area |
1994 Basic Monthly Rate |
1994 Monthly Toll Bill: |
1994 Total
Telecommunications Bill |
Current Local Calling
Area (Prem. Option Eff. 12/15/03) |
Current Basic Monthly
Rate (Premium, 6/1/04) |
2004 Monthly Toll Bill: |
2004 Total Telecomm Bill (+MUSF/MTEAF
Surcharges***) |
||||||
|
100 mins Near * |
100 mins Far ** |
Nominal Dollars |
Real or 2004 $s |
100 mins Near * |
100 mins Far ** |
||||||||||
|
Augusta
(Verizon) |
Kennebec |
Augusta
Belgrade Gardiner No. Whitefield Readfield Sidney West Gardiner Winthrop |
$12.46 |
$9.00 |
$9.00 |
$30.46 |
$38.90 |
Augusta Belgrade Gardiner Palermo
No. Whitefield Readfield
Sidney West Gardiner Winthrop
Waterville East Vassalboro South
China |
$19.08 |
$0.00 |
$4.25 |
$23.79 |
|||
|
Bangor
(Verizon) |
Penobscot |
Bangor Aurora Bradford Bucksport Corinth
Eddington Hampden Hermon Levant Old Town Orono Orrington Winterport |
$12.46 |
$9.00 |
$9.00 |
$30.46 |
$38.90 |
Bangor Alton Aurora
Bradford Bucksport Corinth
Eddington Etna Exeter Hampden Hermon
Levant Newburgh Old Town Old Town Rural Orono
Orrington Otis Stetson Winterport |
$19.08 |
$0.00 |
$4.25 |
$23.79 |
|||
|
Bar
Mills (Saco River Telephone Co.) |
York |
Bar
Mills Waterboro West Buxton |
$4.66 |
$9.00 |
$9.00 |
$22.66 |
$28.94 |
Bar
Mills Biddeford Goodwins Mills Gorham Scarborough Waterboro West Buxton |
$11.32 |
$0.00 |
$4.25 |
$15.88 |
|||
|
Bath
(Verizon) |
Sagadahoc |
Bath Brunswick Wiscasset |
$12.11 |
$9.00 |
$9.00 |
$30.11 |
$38.46 |
Bath
Bowdoinham Brunswick Richmond Wiscasset |
$19.08 |
$0.00 |
$4.25 |
$23.79 |
|||
|
Damarascotta
(Lincolnville Telephone Co.) |
Lincoln |
Damariscotta
Bremen New Harbor Sheepscot
South Bristol |
$7.40 |
$9.00 |
$9.00 |
$25.40 |
$32.44 |
Damariscotta
Bremen New Harbor
Sheepscot South Bristol North
Whitefield Waldoboro Boothbay Harbor Wiscasset |
$15.28 |
$0.00 |
$4.25 |
$19.91 |
|||
|
Eagle
Lake (Northland) |
Aroostook |
Eagle
Lake Clair, NB Fort Kent St. Francis |
$9.65 |
$9.00 |
$9.00 |
$27.65 |
$35.31 |
Eagle
Lake Ashland Clair, NB Fort Kent St. Francis |
$16.50 |
$0.00 |
$4.25 |
$21.16 |
|||
|
Ellsworth
(Verizon) |
Hancock |
Ellsworth Bar Harbor Blue Hill Franklin Northeast
Harbor Southwest Harbor Sullivan |
$12.11 |
$9.00 |
$9.00 |
$30.11 |
$38.46 |
Ellsworth
Aurora Bar Harbor Blue Hill Bucksport Castine Eddington
Franklin Northeast Harbor
Otis Southwest Harbor Sullivan |
$19.08 |
$0.00 |
$4.25 |
$23.79 |
|||
|
Farmington
(Verizon) |
Franklin |
Farmington Wilton |
$11.68 |
$9.00 |
$9.00 |
$29.68 |
$37.91 |
Farmington
Livermore Falls Madison Mercer
Mt. Vernon New Vineyard Rome
Strong Weld Wilton |
$19.08 |
$0.00 |
$4.25 |
$23.79 |
|||
|
Guilford
(Verizon) |
Piscataquis |
Guilford Dexter Dover-Foxcroft Monson |
$11.68 |
$9.00 |
$9.00 |
$29.68 |
$37.91 |
Guilford Dexter Dover-Foxcroft Monson Harmony West Ripley |
$19.08 |
$0.00 |
$4.25 |
$23.79 |
|||
|
Hebron
(Oxford Networks) |
Oxford |
Hebron |
$9.37 |
$9.00 |
$9.00 |
$27.37 |
$34.96 |
Hebron
Buckfield Lewiston Mechanic Falls Norway
Oxford Turner |
$14.54 |
$0.00 |
$4.25 |
$19.16 |
|||
|
Madison
(Verizon) |
Somerset |
Madison
Embden Lake North Anson Skowhegan |
$11.68 |
$9.00 |
$9.00 |
$29.68 |
$37.91 |
Madison
Athens Embden Lake Farmington
Mercer New Vineyard
Norridgewock North Anson North New Portland Skowhegan Solon |
$19.08 |
$0.00 |
$4.25 |
$23.79 |
|||
|
Morrill
(Northland) |
Waldo |
Morrill |
$9.38 |
$9.00 |
$9.00 |
$27.38 |
$34.97 |
Morrill Belfast Brooks Lincolnville/Bch Washington Liberty Freedom Union |
$16.50 |
$0.00 |
$4.25 |
$21.16 |
|||
|
Pembroke
(Verizon) |
Washington |
Pembroke
Eastport |
$10.90 |
$9.00 |
$9.00 |
$28.90 |
$36.91 |
Pembroke
Eastport Calais Lubec Machias |
$19.08 |
$0.00 |
$4.25 |
$23.79 |
|||
|
Poland
(Maine Telephone Co.) |
Androscoggin |
Poland Casco Lewiston Naples Raymond |
$9.65 |
$9.00 |
$9.00 |
$27.65 |
$35.31 |
Poland Casco Gray Lewiston
Mechanic Falls Naples New
Gloucester Oxford Raymond |
$17.50 |
$0.00 |
$4.25 |
$22.18 |
|||
|
Portland
(Verizon) |
Cumberland |
Portland (5 rate centers) Cumberland
Freeport Gorham Pownal Scarborough
Westbrook Windham Yarmouth |
$12.46 |
$9.00 |
$9.00 |
$30.46 |
$38.90 |
Portland
(5 rate centers) Cumberland Freeport
Gorham Gray New Gloucester Old Orchard Beach Pownal Scarborough Westbrook West Gray Windham Yarmouth |
$19.08 |
$0.00 |
$4.25 |
$23.79 |
|||
|
Washington
(Northland) |
Knox |
Washington |
$9.38 |
$9.00 |
$9.00 |
$27.38 |
$34.97 |
Washington
Liberty North Whitefield
Palermo Rockland Union Waldoboro |
$16.50 |
$0.00 |
$4.25 |
$21.16 |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Notes: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
1994 Best available in-state direct
dial toll plan - Pine Tree Plan @ 9˘/min. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
2004 Best available in-state direct
dial toll plan - TouchTone.Net @ 4.25˘/min. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
|
Near toll calling areas are short
distance toll to contiguous exchange. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
Far toll calling areas are longer
distance intrastate toll. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
Local bills do not include federal
surcharges and taxes, or state taxes and E911 surcharge, 2004 total includes
Maine USF and MTEAF surcharges. |
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Real Dollar Calculation (2004 dollars)
-- Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis website, 10/22/04. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
Pine
Tree |
$ 0.09 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
TouchTone |
$ 0.0425 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
MUSF/TEAF |
1.96% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Inflation
Factor |
128% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
[1] Coin Operated Customer Owned Telephones
[2] Commission rules establish three standard offer classes: residential and small commercial, medium commercial and industrial (C&I), and large C&I.
[3] Collectively, the customers of the four northern Maine utilities consume approximately 7% of the kWhs purchased in Maine.
[4] Currently, approximately 90 MW of transmission capacity is available on a firm basis.