All posts in the topic Natural Gas (Short link)
Summary
- There are 5 posts — by 4 authors — in this topic.
- Latest post made by Lee Einer at Feb 24 17:55 UTC
My wife and I attended the Feb 21 natural gas meeting and while we were pleased
that no illegal manipulations were found, we were disappointed that many of the
basic questions regarding the shifting of monies to the general fund and the
large amount of lost natural gas were not investigated. Both of these issues
are probably outside the jurisdiction of the state auditor, still they have
always been and remain the crux of peoples' concern about the city's handling
of this utility. Can anyone suggest who might investigate these problems?
Our city council is in large part responsible for the cash transfers. They enacted the four percent "in lieu of franchise" fee. The 11 percent ( or this year, ten percent) administrative transfer is not a matter of ordinance - it is simply line-itemed into the city's yearly budget and the City Council rubber-stamps it. Should the city council read what they approve before they approve it? Should they have refused to sign off on a budget which is bleeding the enterprise fund dry? I would argue that they should. A basic fact to keep in mind. If out city council members had been discharging their duties with a respectable degree of intelligence and integrity, we would not be where we are now. There are a couple of things that need to happen, pronto, with city utilities. The absolute first thing is that we must halt shutoffs of low income people and medically infirm people during the winter months. It is inexcusable! We can go about that a couple of ways. One way would be for the City Council to enact a winter shutoff moratorium ordinance. If they are unwilling, the second way would be (and state law provides for this) to petition for a ballot measure to place our city utilities under PRC regulation. Then they would have no choice but to observe the state moratorium. The State Auditor's office is currently reviewing state law; it may very well be that the city is bound to observe the moratorium anyway, and has been acting outside of the law. Hector Balderas was involved with drafting the LIHEAP legislation which contains the moratorium, and he has expressed some skepticism as the city's being exempt. The other thing that needs to happen is that the City Council needs to enact an ordinance or resolution clarifying the purpose of the enterprise fund, and that the fund is to be a self-sustaining entity established for the purpose of providing gas, water etc to the people of Las Vegas at affordable rates. That would effectively preclude the city from using the enterprise fund as a cash cow. Lee Einer Here is the state statute allowing us to decide whether our utility is to be PRC regulated - 62-6-5. Local option. (1993) Notwithstanding any of the provisions in Section 62-6-4 NMSA 1978, any municipality desiring to avail itself of all the benefits of the Public Utility Act [62-13-1 NMSA 1978] and of the regulatory services of the commission may elect to come within the provisions of that act and to have the utilities owned and operated by it, either directly or through a municipally owned corporation, regulated and supervised under the provisions of that act. When a municipality so elects, in the manner provided in this section, it shall be subject to all the provisions of the Public Utility Act. The election shall be held as follows: A. at any time after the effective date of the Public Utility Act, the legal voters of any municipality may petition in writing the governing body of the municipality by filing a petition in the office of the municipal clerk to hold an election for the purpose of determining whether the municipality shall be subject to the provisions of that act. If the aggregate of the names signed to the petition equals or exceeds twenty-five percent of the number of legal votes cast in the municipality for governor at the last preceding general election, the governing body of the municipality shall call an election to be held within sixty days of the filing of the petition. Provided, however, that if a general municipal election is to be held for any other purpose within six months of the filing of the petition, the election provided for in this section shall be held at the same time as and through the election machinery used at that election; B. the election shall be held in the same manner as and with the same registration books as for other municipal elections. The ballots to be submitted to the voters at the election shall present the following questions: "For regulation of municipally owned utilities by the New Mexico public utility commission ............ "Against regulation of municipally owned utilities by the New Mexico public utility commission ............" The votes at the election shall be counted, returned and canvassed as provided for in general municipal elections. If the majority of all the votes are in favor of regulation of municipally owned utilities, the governing body of the municipality shall declare, by order entered upon the records of the municipality, that it is subject to all the provisions of the Public Utility Act. If the majority of all the votes are against such regulation, the result of the election shall be declared and entered in the same manner; and C. no elections for the same purpose shall be held within two years of each other. Milton Deemer wrote: > My wife and I attended the Feb 21 natural gas meeting and while we were pleased that no illegal manipulations were found, we were disappointed that many of the basic questions regarding the shifting of monies to the general fund and the large amount of lost natural gas were not investigated. Both of these issues are probably outside the jurisdiction of the state auditor, still they have always been and remain the crux of peoples' concern about the city's handling of this utility. Can anyone suggest who might investigate these problems? > > Milton Deemer > > Info about Milton Deemer: http://forums.e-democracy.org/contacts/miltondeemer > > This topic's messages may be viewed at: http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/6q0f0xZPvpNNWQgk7Gjbei
The 11% (10 million) that is supposed to go into the enterprise fund was
used for salaries, parks and recreations, etc... of course the city was
in debt and that money was funneled to get the city out of debt. All the
State auditor said was that city violated its own ordinance but that it
was not criminal, of course it is against the law because of the way the
money was managed and that is why our city manager resigned (with a
$12,000.00 severance package). The city did not go bankrupt because of
this but the community was left with nothing. It is all up to us and who
we put in to run our city. I don't understand why people keep putting
these individuals into office just because they fear for their jobs. It is
better to stand by yourself or with very few and say this is wrong than to
just go wherever the wind blows.
Sam Lujan
Director, Information Technology
Alta Vista Regional Hospital
104 Legion drive
Las Vegas, NM. 87701
phone 505-426-3960
<email obscured>
"There are three types, the wills, the wont's , and the cant's. The wills
try everything, the wont's oppose everything, and the cant's don't try
anything. WHICH ARE YOU!"
"Milton Deemer" <mdeemer@fastmail.fm>
02/22/2008 10:33 AM
To
"Las Vegas Issues Forum" <lasvegas-issues@forums.e-democracy.org>
cc
Subject
[LV-Issues] Natural Gas
Lee - That State statute permitting PRC regulation sounds interesting. Can
you help me/us get more information, especially about all
the "benefits of the Public Utility Act [62-13-1 NMSA 1978] and of the
regulatory services of the commission"?
The Act itself is lengthy and a booger to read through, as is fairly typical of governmental regulation. Soundbite summary - PRC regulation would stop the city from shutting off heat to LIHEAP eligible (low income) customers during winter months, and would require any rate increases to be reviewed and approved by the PRC. Downside, some have claimed, is loss of local autonomy and self-determination. The reason that municipal utilities are not automatically PRC regulated is that they are already controlled by government at the city level, and the theory is that our elective representatives will runn our utilities in our best interests. But how's that working out for us so far? The best solution would be intelligent, engaged and principled representation by our Mayor and City Council. I am not saying that's a lost cause, but it is light-years away from the status quo. Can we make our city government heed and obey the will of the people of this city? If we can, lets make a plan and do it. But if we don't have a way and the will to make it so, PRC regulation would at least decrease the chance of our poorer friends and neighbors being at risk of having their heat shut off during the winter's bitter cold. Lee Bob Wallace wrote: > Lee - That State statute permitting PRC regulation sounds interesting. Can you help me/us get more information, especially about all the "benefits of the Public Utility Act [62-13-1 NMSA 1978] and of the regulatory services of the commission"? > > Bob Wallace > Las Vegas > Info about Bob Wallace: http://forums.e-democracy.org/contacts/bobwallace > > This topic's messages may be viewed at: http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/4p0enetwLD8huBC8zOn45H