In New Brunswick we have a Public Intervener that intervenes in NB Power rate increase hearings and is supposed to be looking out for public interest and fight to keep rates low and stable. In this hearing however the public intervener hired an expert to review NB Powers rate application and he is suggesting the board put priority on NB Power profits over keeping rates low and stable and that NB Power should consider asking for even larger rate increases to make up for poor performance at Point Lepreau.
NB Power may need bigger rate increase, says intervener’s expert
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/nb-power-rate-increase-intervener-consultant-1.3939999
We discovered that the whole basis of his evidence was based on his wrong interpretation of the Electricity Act. He interpreted the act in his evidence as saying “rates should be kept low as possible and should be stable and predictable” but the legislation ACTUALLY states “rates shall be maintained as low as reasonably possible and shall be stable and predictable” There is a huge difference in legal and regulatory meaning between should and shall. A Shall statement is a requirement and a Should statement is only guidance and is not a requirement.
To read our Interrogatories on the public interveners evidence click the link below.
New Clear Free Solutions 