BANGO, the lone Intervenor at the upcoming FTC hearing on the Application for a Depreciation Policy for the Barbados Light & Power Ltd has advised that they have successfully submitted its response – See BANGO’s Submission
Related Link – BANGO Is The Sole Intervenor At Barbados Light And Power Hearing
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Wow! If the rest of the media was as sharp as BU, Barbados would have something to be proud about.
To our layman’s eyes it looks like the team did a good job given the constraint of time.
Thanks David! We started from scratch on Sunday Evening at 5 p.m. and finished the compilation by 2 p.m. this afternoon, when the Affidavit was sworn before Lord High Admiral Vernon Watson, O.B.E., J.P. of the Barbados Landship.
Now we have to get ourselves ready for the 27th January. There is an Issues Conference coming up, where the issues to be dealt with in the hearing will be determined. The BL&P has until 20th January to respond to our submission and answer the interrogatories.
We did not get any confirmation as yet, but it looks as though Olson Robertson will be accepted as an Intervenor because his application was not received late. Olson protested the reason given by the FTC for not including other interveors; their explanation was that all other applications were late. Therefore his protest was on good grounds.
This is good news for consumers, even though he would have been slightly disadvantaged by not attending the Procedural Conference. The alternative was for him to take it to court and that could well have delayed the January 27th start.
However, since he would have been accepted late, they will have to give him time to submit his documents if he did not meet the deadline this evening. Of course the other alternative would be for him to simply participate come 27th without making a previous submission.
However the scenario turns out, we will be collaborating and synchronising inputs.
ROK – Banned BFP.
Very well done. The content is clear and reasonably concise – Juris and Pat and Anon 3 and I might quibble about the style, but that is so minor as to be irrelevant. It is a considerable achievement and congratulations to all. Well done too to BU.
BWWR
Thanks for your kind remarks. We are not lawyers, we are following a format.
What do you think of the Depreciation Adjust Clause recommendation? You see, when a rate is set, it includes extras such as amortisation. After the company has collected the amortisation out of the rate set and another rate is not set to take off these payments from customer bills, then the company will legally continue to collect that component. I call it free money.
In this case, a shift in the value of assets, either to prolong the life of assets or to revalue them, could mean that the company could show an increased profit of up to $30M annually.
For example, the BL&P reported a profit of $58M in the last year and this is a 48% increase on the profits from the previous year. Let’s face it, the BL&P did not double its customer base. Therefore, it seems strange that they would come for a depreciation hearing to alter the method, in order to allow extension on asset lives and revaluation of assets, in our estimation.
We are saying that when this happens the consumer should get a refund. What do you think?
ROK banned BFP // January 7, 2009 at 9:37 am
It has been ages since I was actively involved in matters like this. That is why I suggested two QCs who can deal with this and who might be prepared to do so pro bono. I do strongly urge you to contact Miss Chase or Mr Smith and ask for help. The worst thing that can happen is that they say no. Give them a call this morning and remember they are friends with each other and supporters of the rights of the common man, so you stand a chance of getting both. I really cannot see either of these two public-spirited counsel refusing to talk to you and advise you and if they think their presence will assist, you can be sure they will attend with you. The old saying, “nothing ventured…… ”
You don’t have to tell me the document was not drafted by a lawyer – that is clear. However, what is also clear is that it was drafted by extremely bright and focussed people with the wellbeing of Bajans (and I am talking about the majority with limited finances) at their disposal, as their sole concern.
Given that, I am surpised and dismayed that there has not been far more feedback, including from other counsel. I can only reflect that the efforts of BFP to restore the threadbare image of Adrian Loveridge has occupied all minds instead.
Come on, BU family. Pitch in and help ROK. It affects u all. Wake up and smell the cawfee.
Finally, any decision is likely to be retroactive (at least I hope so) and then refunds would have to be paid.
Dare I call on you, Prime Minister Thompson (and I know you monitor BU and all these matters daily) to commence legislation in keeping with other developed countries to ensure that monopolies involving essential services cannot arbitrarily hike prices to the detriment and prejudice of old and indigent Bajans. In fairness, Sir, I am sure that you are addressing the issue even as I write. Knowing you, I would be shocked if it were otherwise. However, in keeping with our democratic process, I am petitioning you to tell BL&P to go to hell and upholding BANGO. Remember, Henry pon the other side of the political divide. Come on, David, help out us old people.
@ROK
Extending the life of key assets at BL and P will inflate profits for shareholders but as you pointed out it will only be a book entry. It will not change their statutory requirement for paying taxes. The key will be whether shareholder take advantage of the inflated position. If the shareholders take advantage then the BLandP customer should expect more.
It will be interesting to hear why BLandP wants to extend the life of assets. Hope BANGO has investigated best practice in other jurisdictions.
We are sure BU is not saying anything that Skeete and Chris wouldn’t have offered:-)
ROK, I just had a thought. I know he is retired and all that and he is younger than I am (but not by that much), but what about making a telephone call to Sleepy Smith? Henry is at these hearings as a consultant only and there is nothing to prevent Sleepy from doing the same. I had not heard that Sleepy is ill, incapacitiated or dead, so by now the old warhorse might just be bored enough – and angry enough – to take a stand. He always used to like to involve himself in issues like this one on the side of the Bajan consumer. Give it a try. He is not acting as a lawyer (which he cannot do because he was a Justice of Appeal) but as a consultant – and I can see nothing that prevents him from doing that. Sleepy has to be about the same age as Henry as well and if I were a betting person, I would back Sleepy any day on something like this.
BWWR
Thanks for the advice. I think it is sound. I will make a try at it. Do you think that he would be seen as practicing if he spoke on our behalf, or are you saying that he would simply be there at the table to advise?
Sometimes when you are bull-rushed by a Chairman to shut up, it does help to know the finer details of your rights. Like the blow-up between myself and Vivianne Gittens; trying to shut us up. I was a bit more comfortable with Hallam King in this regard.
The next thing is the movement of the goal posts from time to time. Same as with Ms. Gittens in the above example. You see, at first there was no limit on presentations, but when she saw that seventeen intervenors were entitled to make presentations and cross examine, she imposed a time limit. In the end, only about seven of us participated actively and what the others did was to give their time to those who spoke. She could not do anything about that.
ROK, my advice is that Sleepy (and Miss Chase and Mr Smith) have never been known to do what they are told, even by judges, far less by the Ms Gittens of this world. If Ms Gittens were to try that nonsense with them, she would find herself facing them in court with a judge ruling on what they could or could not do. This is the sort of counsel you need in your corner – one that makes it clear that the matter CAN go further if the grounds exist. The last thing Ms Gittens wants is to be reprimanded and made to look a fool by the judicial system.
I know what you mean about the difference between Hallam and Ms Gittens. One IS a gentleman in every sense of the word – and the other thinks she is a “lady”.
I am going to monitor this issue. It is very important to people of my age who may not be as well financed as I am. In these days of financial uncertainty, there but for the Grace of God go I. It is my duty as a Bajan to assist the underdog. I just got back from Christmas overseas so may not respond to you immediately. However, if memory serves, you are not due at the hearing until the 28th or 29th. Give me a few days to recover and then I will mobilize the Old Girls’ Network and we will see if we can do what my youngest grandson rudely (but accurately) describes as “kick some a**”. We grannys have ways not dreamed of by anone not a grandmother – and means of applying pressure that makes the political claims of BFP look insignificant. I am completely satisfied that you are acting in the common good, in other words ‘pro bono publico’. I am not at all convinced if the bona fides of your opposition. You can count on me.
Now, BU family, let us hear from the rest of you. I urge you that if you are in agreement with ROK to give him/her your support here. Anyone who reads this blog ought to register an opinion – for or against – either is helpful. This is not just as against BL&P alone, but against all monopolies that control essential Barbadian services.
BWWR
Wow! You packing some power punches here. Thanks very much for your vote of confidence. Thanks also for the call for support, we really need it and as you say, the discussion for or against is very helpful. The idea is that consumers come out on top.
This is not about BANGO but about all the consumers in Barbados. As a matter of fact, the mandate and constitution of BANGO makes BANGO about Barbados and is not designed to serve self interests.
I tried calling sleepy but got no answer from one phone and the other one is out of service. Not even sure that I got the right number(s).
David
Just got confirmation that Olson Robertson was accepted as the only other intervenor. He challenged them and won. I will write a story after i speak to him, if necessary.
There is no doubt that ROK is a well meaning citizen.
Keep on keeping on ROK
Thanks ROK, soon I will be addressing a particular matter; and you have made me feel good about what I think I have to do as a citizen of Barbados.
For a moment I thought that all Bajans were a bunch of Frauds! There is still hope!
ROK, you make this old girl proud. I am PROUD of you. You might be able to get Sleepy through his former chambers at Smith & Smith (his brother is the Mr Smith Q.C. that I spoke of). I see the telephone number is 427-5681 or 5683. You might also take the time to speak to Mr Smith and see if he will give you a few moments of his time over the next few days. With Mr Smith, you will get the same results as with his famous brother, but with less publicity than if you have Sir Frederick Smith and the publicity is to be preferred. However, you should also speak to Miss Chase Q.C. who is also not unknown.
This matter is of concern to us ALL!!! Irrespective of if we are lawyers, doctors or some poor old lady with very limited finances who lives cut off in St Lucy. THIS IS A NATIONAL ISSUE. On issues like this rest the very future of our country and the well-being of our people – FAR more than on some swamp in Christ Church or other elitist fad, no matter how worthy. This ensures that that old lady in St Lucy can pay for electricity to give her comfort and so she can watch the very television or listen to the very radio whose news staff seem not to think this matter is of any importance at all.
Well done, ROK!!!!
ROK, I just looked at BFP from which you are banned. Instead of this issue that you are spearheading, they are concerned because the kidnappers of the Great Train Robber, Ronald Biggs, have been refused entry to Barbados – ancient and of no immediate interest to those of us who live here, other than as a historical footnote. I didn’t bother to read their claptrap, so have no idea if they agree with the exclusion or not. The symmetry of this discussion struck me. As you may recall, the British Government tried to extradite Mr Biggs from Barbados to the UK. Mr Biggs successfully resisted this and his counsel was none other than Sir Frederick Smith Q.C. Good old Sleepy produced a defence that was not appealed to the Privy Council, because it could not be overcome. Let us hope this great jurist will come to the assistance of BANGO and of Barbados itself.
Anonymous
Glad to be an inspiration. If there is anything I could help with feel free to ask. Our motto is people first, country second and anything can play after that.
Oh Boy! I am overwhelmed and humbled at the responses, especially BWWR. You make it sound as though you feel something that you ain’t feel for a long; like how Stella got back her groove; LOL.
Don’t worry, I am feeling happy very that somebody is responding and is eager to give advice. It certainly will not go unheeded. Most of all I am happy to make you feel proud.
Will try for Sleepy tomorrow morning first thing.
ROK, just so you know for sure, I am not Stella, although she is a very bright woman and, although she would deny it with her last breath, she is not far off my age. Since she is a senior citizen and a very clever lady, her support might be useful.
What bothers me a little here is the lack of response to you. This is a test case, if I may be allowed to put it like that. Supporting BANGO in this sends a message as well as encouraging BANGO to intervene in future similar incidents. BU explored this story and comments or even just encouragement would be good. Instead, this issue is apparently of less interest that Rihanna and what is going on in Palestine. Are we so trivial and/or so interested in the affiars of other nations that we put our own on the back burner? That is, frankly, discouraging. We can do better.
Since starting up BU we have quickly detected that Barbadians love to talk but struggle to move to the next step if required. We wish hard for problems to go away but we are reluctant to give a little of our time to contribute to solving the problem. We see it with the lack of support on the LIME and consumer issues as well. It is always the few civic minded souls who have to step forward. It is why some people question if our education system is failing us.
The true test of our education must be to evaluate the current situation (reality) and take the appropriate action (future).
BWWR
This problem is widespread. We say we have a good education system, but I wonder???
Too many people are not familiar with what is going on around them. They are just not there and most would like to be certain before they act, but they do not know sufficient to know when, or even how, they can roll.
You may be fortunate being a practitioner of the law, but this is the same problem. When people are in situations and they don’t know their rights; they just don’t know if they are right or wrong and would concede to somebody in authority telling them foolishness and don’t know that who or what they are conceding to, is dead wrong.
When I reflect on the difference between the 60s – 70s and now, I see that there were many more informative programs in the media than now. Heated debates in which the top dogs from UWI were engaged:
Pat Emmanuel, George Belle, Neville Duncan, Ralph Gonsalves, Wendell McClean, Farley Brathwaite, John Cumberbatch, Ezra Alleyne, Father Harry, Drexel Gomez, and too many more to “forget”.
I hear people say there are more distractions now, but you know what? People have to try to understand what is important to them. Distractions are for children. When you become an adult you must then do things like manage your time and undertake your responsibilities.
I am not deterred; just that it makes the job harder. I am sure that with the blog, at least it is here for people to read and digest in their own time.
When we were doing the C&W hearing, we had to depend on the media. In this going-down, I was able to get all the documents in the public the same day we delivered them; thanks to BU.
Not only that, we are able to do some discussion here and that lends to the stock of knowledge and will give readers an appreciation of what we have to go through. I’m sure it will get better as time goes on. We just need to use the tools at our disposal to help others complete the education they will not get in school.
In case BU family members are interested in FTC Plans 2009.
FTC sets priorities for 2009
1/8/2009
By Stacia Browne
THE Barbados Fair Trading Commission (FTC) has placed a number investigations among its top priorities for the coming year, and is pushing ahead to conclude a number of ongoing issues.
This is contained in the FTC’s 2008 Annual Report and which according to Chairman, Sir Neville Nicholls, found breaches of the Consumer Protection laws during last year.
That is the decision on the Price Cap Plan 2008 which will govern the regulated services of Cable and Wireless (now LIME) – full article
The FTC has been rather deficient in policing the regulations. It needs more staff.
ROK thanks for making the effort. You are doing yourself and Barbadians proud.
….. Could you explain the process in layman terms please!. i.e. after your “intervention” what is the next step? I should probably ask you to start from the top.
Other questions:
If you did not participate would the FTC simply accept BL&P request and make the change?
Is the FTC mandated to do their own intervention?
The BL&P makes logical case for making the change to the “THE REMAINING LIFE METHOD” since they are currently using it for accounting purposes. If the FTC denies BL&P’s request and continues to use the Whole life (average service life method) would that not lead to the company having to maintiain to sets of accounting processes?
Would it not have further solidify your intervention by making a case for BL&P to revert back to the Whole life (average service life method)?
The consultancy firm in Exhibit A did not make a sufficient case for remaining life method over the whole method. I think that as long as BL&P is allowed to use the remaining life method they will have a good argument for the FTC to make the change.
STILL have not read all the documents.
To add to Adrian H’s questions:
What is the role of Public Counsel in this matter if any?
AH
The intervention is in progress. We have to follow the process in order to intervene. It is a mixed role of being an advocate, researcher, accountant and engineer with no previous experience.
However, The role of the Intervenor is based on what the consumer wants and it is presumed that you don’t have to be any of these professionals to know what you want. The most important thing is to find the evidence to support what you want and the advocacy skills to place issues on the agenda of the Panel.
If there were no interventions, then the BL&P and Government would just do what the CEO and probably the Minister decides.
Public Counsel cannot intervene without a client but should surely attend to help out the Intervenors. This is what happened last time. Barry attended but during the course of the proceedings, started representing those who found it difficult to attend. His main client became the Council for the Disabled.
With or without the merging of the policies, they still have to keep two sets of accounts.
We are still examining the two different methods to try to see what makes sense for the consumer. I would not come out and say, that to argue against the application would solidify our intervention. Our role is to come up with the best equation for consumers and if joining the applicant is best, then we will do so.
I am not sure that they have a good case for the simple reason that there is no demonstration that to have the two separate methods is more expensive, time-saving or convenient. Hutson Best in his affidavit admits that there is very little difference between the two. So if there is no difference between the two, why go to the extent of having a hearing, separate and apart from a rate hearing? Don’t you smell a rat? Red flags flying? Bells pealing? And siren blasting?
Read the documents AH, so you can help us rationalise it; and also study our intervention to see if you can help us make it better. Don’t worry too much about the Depreciation Study, read the affidavits first.
You see, you can contribute from all the way out there. I woud like to encourage the other bloggers to do the same.
This is a job for the conspiracy theorist on here too, like HOPI.
@Hopi! What could they possibly want? What is the benefit to them? This is the puzzle we have to solve. Of course, I bet that if they win, once a rate hearing comes we will surely find out, but that will be too late.
Good job ROK. I just got back from Barbados and one thing which I found to be consistent is that Barbadians fret but don’t agitate. I was in Super Center at Warrens. I got to the register with some groceries including Anchor cheese. When the cashier scanned the price of the cheese it came to $37.00. I remembered I saw it earlier that day at Jordan’s supermarket for $30.00. I told her to put it back so she had to void the item. You should have heard 2 people behind me quarelling saying that I worrying about a measly $7.00. THAT IS THE BIG PROBLEM in Barbados. The merchants will continue to increase the prices once they realise that Barbadians will pay regardless.
Tony
I here laughing because if that was me or a rank Bajan, they would have kept their mouths shut or risk being lambasted. Not that you are not, but somebody may have detected an accent in your voice and brand you as a returning national; for which too many Bajans do not respect.
You too nice and maybe soft spoken. Don’t worry Tony, don’t lose it; no need to disrespect yourself to prove a point, just be firm.
Thanks for the compliment. Hope you join in the discussion; as we need it. No contribution is too small.
ROK, I have now had the chance to speak to a few friends and see what I can do to get top counsel for you pro bono. I will work on it this coming week and hopefully (but of course no promises) by week’s end you will have a top counsel to support you at the hearing.
If any of you members of the BU family and its readers are personally acquainted with the counsel whom I have suggested, please contact them and add your voices to mine to get them to support and assist ROK. This is our country – and theirs – and one of our more public-minded citizens needs (and deserves) our support.
BWWR
On behalf of BANGO and its associates, we are very grateful for your support and intervention on this. This feels very rewarding, because at long last, somebody on BU has taken positive action. Thank you very much BWWR.
Gosh ROK are you saying that the BU family is all talk?
ROK,
Not soft spoken, very strong Bajan accent. They probably thought I was a returning national but they have a lot to learn.
ROK,
May I respectfully suggest that you examine all the parties in the decision-making process here and ensure that none of them have a conflict of interest. If any of them do, it appears to me that this would be grounds for any decision, adverse or otherwise, to be set aside. Conflict of Interest guidelines are universally accepted as being set out in three authorities, one UK, one Canadian and one USA. They are:
R v Neil (Supreme Court of Canada)
Marks & Spencers v Freshfields (UK)
The American Bar Association Model Rules 2003.
All are available online. However, it is largely a matter of common sense. For instance, if I were a judge, I could not sit in a matter involving family members or any entity (corporate or otherwise) with which I had had previous dealings or been employed by. I would recuse myself voluntarily or, if not aware that I was conflicted, would, upon being so advised by counsel, or anyone else for that matter, recuse myself.
BL&P cannot have any former or present employee or relative close thereof sit in this in a manner that seeks to interpret the rules and regulations of the hearing or make decisions at the hearing. If there are any such, you ought to ask, preferably in writing and by registered mail – so they cannot say they have not got it – that they recuse themselves. In other words, declare their lack of legal competence in the matter due, in this case, to conflict of interest.
This is just a little housekeeping matter in larger countries. However, in Barbados, because of its size, conflict is a fact of life against which we must all be very vigilant. I do not say that people set out to be conflicted, although there are some lawyers who seem to relish being conflicted, but that it happens in small countries.
Well said.
David,
You can’t have it both ways. You can’t be anonymous and identified too. BWWR has found a way. Gosh! Give the family some credit.
OK Sire!
BWWR
I take it you mean the Panel. Now at what point would we want to invoke a conflict of interest? For example, No decision has been made, the FTC is now being asked to make a decision. I feel that the most we could accomplish with conflict is delay.
If we come to know of the conflict after a bad decision is made, how would that be looked upon? Especially if we can argue that the conflict was not apparent? I suspect I may be missing something here.
The real advocacy problem is getting your evidence or issues on the agenda. The issues conference is Friday 10 a.m. Among the problems is getting ready. For example, the date for submitting expert witnesses was 12th December, and the deadline for application for Intervenor was 18th Dec.
On this score, we are wondering how we will get our man on the stand to give evidence as an expert? The next problem is that only one of the persons, Peter Huck, was accepted as an expert witness for the Applicant. We would very much like to examine Hutson but does this mean that he will not take the stand? What about the Engineer? Can we request to examine those who put in affidavits? How does this go?
Next question is, will the contents of an affidavit be taken as evidence on the face of it? i.e. without an opportunity for presenting that evidence and crossexamination.
@ROK…… Hopi was MIA, not in class today. Gotta to some research!
Hopi
What is that? Which Intelligence Agency? what does the M stand for?
ROK… My Intelligence Agency? No that Missing In Action.
Man Hopi, man. I don’t know who missing in action. I will check the missing persons reports and see if I know anybody that missing, that you know too. LOL!
ROK,
If there is a conflict, it is up to the conflicted person to reveal it and withdraw from the proceedings. If they fail to do this, then they have provided grounds for taking the matter to court. So, I am looking at a worst-case scenario in which BANGO loses and wants to appeal. That is why I asked that you ascertain if anyone in the decision-making process was conflicted. Your hand is considerably strengthened if you challenge a conflicted person at the hearing and they refuse to withdraw or the panel refuses to order them to withdraw.
It is a standard practice in law that if anyone files an affidavit, you can respond by the same means. Barbados follows English practice in COURT and usually what happens is that counsel agree that evidence is submitted and refuted by affidavit. To my mind this speeds up considerably the process of administering justice. HOWEVER, at any time counsel can ask the judge (and the judge can agree or not – and it is largely discretionary) to allow viva voce evidence in which the affiant is required to take the stand and be cross-examined on their affidavit. In some other legal jurisdictions, there is the rule that ANYONE swearing an affidavit can be examined on it.
In this instance, I suspect the regulations are that anyone filing an affidavit can be cross-examined. In this, as opposed to a court process, I believe that it is best that such cross-examinations be carried out by an expert in the field and not a lawyer. All too often, lawyers have had to make themselves experts overnight in fields not their own for the purposes of cross-examination with sometimes lamentable results – I have watched many an expert cringing in his seat in court as his attorney gets details of questions wrong. This is not a process where you are complaining of a breach of law, but one where you are opposing the exercise of something that is legal on the basis of public good and fairness. It is actually a battle of the experts, rather than of the legal beagles. However, if not carried out in a legal manner and with fairness, this is where the lawyers come in. It is for that reason BANGO ought to have counsel present.
I do also want to note that you need to have someone who can take comprehensive notes and your experts ought to extensively and exhaustively prepare their questions in advance. Also, they ought not to rush and if there is a point on which they are unsure and need to take other expert advice, they ought to ask (and receive) a brief adjournment (from 10 to 30 minutes or an early meal break) to make a call and get the information they need.
To cut to the bottom line, I would think, subject to correction, that any and all affiants can be cross-examined and if cross-examination is refused by the chair, then the process has to be deemed fundamentally and constitutionally unfair. And that is where the fun starts, because legal proceedings ought then to be able to be filed.
David, I think that your having kept this as your lead story for all this time gives a very clear indication of the support and sympathies of the BU family and I am sure that no adverse criticism was intended by anyone. All I would like now to see is that BU family mobilize as many supporters as it can – even to the extent of trying to attend or even picket the hearings. I believe they are at the Accra Beach Hotel and I passed by Accra yesterday and nuff tourists……BUT I am also a little disappointed that the BU family and readers have not contributed their views more to this issue. When I write on the other side of the Kingsland Estates issue, I receive a far greater response and trust me, the Kingsland issue is worth squat as against this one. Even the usually very vocal J has been silent and the insightful contributions of Juris and Pat are sorely missed, but we know Pat is in Jamaica kicking up her heels like a young filly, lucky girl.
I am also surprised that the other blogs have not added their voices to that of BU (even if BFP has banned ROK – petty, BFP, very petty, in the face of a matter of national importance). It seems that politics, not public good, dictates the policies of these. It is like at election time when, no matter how good the admirable the policies of one party, they will be either dumped on or ignored by the other party – and I thought the blogs were above this. Seems I was wrong.
Good luck with this, ROK.
@BWWR
We second your criticism about members of the BU family. It challenges our powers of reason why our educated Barbadians would engage a porakey attitude towards this matter. We know people of all backgrounds visit BU but for whatever reason they have elected to remain silent, a pity.
BWWR
Thanks for your insightful comments. I hope that Juris understand where we are coming from now that you have explained it further. He/she thinks that we are frowning on lawyers but as you say, this is a battle of the experts.
Yet we cannot do without legal input as I tried to explain, but I wonder if Juris got the point; that we ended up with a legal bill of $12,000.00 and that had nothing to do with the bombardment Public Counsel had from us.
I think you are correct that whom ever submits an affidavit can be cross-examined. However, I am not clear as to the weight given to an expert witness. What is the difference? To what extent would the evidence of an expert witness negate any other evidence? What if you had two people of similar degrees of qualification but one was accepted as an expert witness and the other was not; is there any weight to be determined? Would the designated evidence of the expert witness have more weight than his non-designated counterpart?
In our case, we missed the date for submitting expert witnesses and we were only able to enter an affidavit with accounting evidence but not the engineering side. So we are already disadvantaged in terms of time.
While our engineering person is still studying it, we may very well have to use him to cross examine their engineer but without being able to put any evidence; Is that correct? Are we able to technically get in evidence by, for example, getting an expert witness to admit that something is either wrong or right? What if he sticks out for the opposite and is incorrect but saying he is correct? Does our submission have any weight?
These are some of the technicalities which we have to overcome right now. Another thing, can anybody be used to cross-examine? Can we use one of our witnesses or a person who entered an affidavit to cross-examine witnesses from the other side?
In terms of who speaks for BANGO, can the baton be passed. Can I simply get up and say, Today Douglas Skeete will speak for BANGO? Or at a point in time for cross-examination, can I declare that Douglas Skeete will now cross examine the witness? or lead the cross examination?
Let’s not worry about who is not responding and try to work with who is. I think that once we expand the discussion and lay out the issues, we will get responses. Right now, even those who are brave enough to respond are not asking the critical questions or delving, so that tells me we have to lay it out.
At this point David I think I have to side with BU household. It was my experience in the last rate hearing too, that people were just not aware of the issues, but now we have a blog, and I think the onus is on those who know the issues (including me) to bring the matter to the public and that is the only way we are going to get their input.
They just have to be made familiar. No juicy gossip here to keep interests; although, that may be, yet to come.
I see that we have at least two well wishers including the very vocal Hopi and anonymous; Hope you get the drift.
BWWR
If you check our submission, you will see that we are infering that we still do not know the real reason why the BL&P wants the Depreciation policy changed.
Those three questions keep coming back to me:
Why have a separate hearing for Depreciation?
What is so critical about Depreciation that it could not be part of a rate hearing?
Exactly what benefits the company expect to derive?
It seems a bit of an expensive route just to change a policy, considering that the Affidavit of Hutson claims that there is very little difference between the two methods. What if the intention is to apply for a rate hearing only if they get what they want here?
So what if they don’t get what they want? We have been told that a shift in depreciation could mean a difference of up to $30M in profit; maybe more; given the assets of the company.
In this regard, we see that last year the BL&P made $58M, which was quoted as 48% more than the previous year’s profit. Well, half 58 is $29M. Is this a demonstration of the above advice?
Even though this benefits the company in some way, is there not a spin off for consumers. If they are making more money, it means that is good grounds for a reduction in the rate??
@ROK….Banned from BFakeP like Hopi.
Hopi doesn’t want to be that fool that rushes in where angels fear to thread, so I was reading up on your site and was trying to listen to your audio (which has a very distorted quality) but I can’t find exactly what this DEPRECIATION Policy is about.
@Hopi
Better will be done in sooner times hopefully. We are trying to get some equipment to make it better. We getting a few licks with the technology, but that is because we were trying to make-do, but have found that make-do don’t really cut it.
I will leave Doug Skeete to respond to you. I sent him the link to this thread. I trust though that you have read the affidavits as well as our response, because the entire thing is encapsulated in those.
Focus also on the fact that they want a change that really does not make much difference, except that the one they are proposing, allows them to re-value the equipment.
Your thoughts on why depreciation could be so important to the company that out of all the others factors that make up the rate, this is having a hearing all by itself.
@ROK.. Can I conclude that this depreciation and re-valuing of equipment will result in a rate increase?
No Hopi. You cannot conclude that. The BL&P has to make an application for a rate hearing. There is room for the FTC to haul them up, but it would seem that the FTC is not inclined to do that so easily; as a matter of policy.
BWWR, Hopi, David
See link to Procedural Order No. 1:
http://www.ftc.gov.bb/library/2009-01-08_procedural_order_number_1.pdf
The blogmaster invites you to join the discussion.