ANOTHER meeting, another rate increase. The Public Utilities Commission again approved an increase in the customer charge for residential service effective May 1. This increase came after three public hearings held in three different villages as required by Guam law.

Without greater understanding and transparency in the process of rate increases, the general public will continue to be left blind-sided by the inadequate information and reasons for the rate increases.

In fact, in GPA Docket 11-09 dated April 24, the Administrative Law Judge of the PUC stated that, “[t]his rate case is perhaps the most complicated rate case to ever be addressed by the PUC.”

We all have felt the squeeze on our pockets when any rate increases are forced upon us. If we are able to fully understand the reasons why utility rate increases are proposed, we may be able to fully speak out on them and its effects on our livelihood. The general public may be able to inform PUC members on what they see in the operations of the utilities and suggest cost reductions and efficiencies, which may be able reduce costs, instead of raise rates to meet the revenue needs for the Guam Power Authority, the Guam Waterworks Authority, and now, the Port Authority of Guam.

Guam Law created the Ratepayers’ Bill of Rights, the fundamental rights of the ratepayers which include: (1) the right to receive clear and adequate notice of any proposed rate increase; (2) the right to be fully informed about and to fully evaluate any proposed rate increase, as well as the finances of the Public Utility; and (3) the right to give input and participate in any proposed rate increase.

In an effort to truly meet the above requirements, I offered PUC to televise their hearing to maximize compliance with the Ratepayers’ Bill of Rights. Unfortunately for you, they did not accept my offer.

Nevertheless, I have continued to attend the hearings and present testimony on behalf of the public to press the utilities to look within their operations for savings, which would do wonders in preventing the unnecessary burden of increases to ratepayers. I have also continually presented alternative scenarios and additional analysis to avert increases and the amount of the increases.

To put the recent PUC-ordered customer charge (base rate) increase into perspective and provide a summary of the winners and losers, lets travel back to May 4, 2010 when GPA gave a presentation to the Chamber of Commerce. In that presentation, GPA provided information about their needs to increase revenue to cover the 2010 bond issuance. GPA’s plan included increases in the customer charges for residential service, also known as rate schedule R, as well as non-residential service (business), also known as schedules J, K, P, and L. The plan presented in 2010 had a 12.3 percent increase to the customer charge for both residential and business customers.

Fast forward to May 2012. The PUC approved a 66 percent increase to customer charge for residential service but did not increase the customer charge for business. There was a PUC order to restructure business rates, but it is unclear at this time how that will occur. Previous presentations provided scenarios with lower proportional increases to large business rates compared to small business rates. In all scenarios, residential rates were increased in higher proportion to rates paid by all business.

What changed between 2010 and 2012? The amount of bond money borrowed was about the same, but it is who will be carrying the burden of repaying these funds that changed. The residential and small business customers appear to be the losers and big business the winners.

Greater scrutiny and accountability on all requests for rate increases must be placed on the utilities especially when earlier proposals are abandoned to the detriment of one class of customers.

It time for PUC to level the playing field. It must start listening to the people.