V.I. Superior Court Judge Harold Willocks refused to issue a ruling Monday on a motion for a temporary restraining order spearheaded by Sen. Alicia “Chucky” Hansen to halt the recent LEAC (Levelized Energy Adjustment Clause) rate hikes by the V.I. Water and Power Authority. Instead, after hours of deliberating the legality of granting a temporary restraining order, Willocks said he would make a ruling on Friday.
The 10 a.m. hearing was overflowing with interested parties and several of the near two-dozen plaintiffs who signed on to the Aug. 2 lawsuit to stop the recent rate increases imposed by WAPA from July to September. The motion also seeks to halt the V.I. Public Services Commission (PSC) from approving the rate increases based solely on fuel costs.
The lawsuit claims that fuel prices paid by WAPA were incorrectly based on “Oil Buyers’ Guide” prices, without verifying Hovensa’s prices. Since WAPA was unable to verify that Hovensa was charging the adequate amount based on the guide, the plaintiffs contend the LEAC is unjust.
As soon as the trial began, Willocks let it be known that plaintiff’s attorney George H. Hodge Jr. seemed to bypass a crucial step in the hearing process. The complaint was launched from a June 30 petition filed by Hansen before the PSC, which sought to request a stay and reconsideration of LEAC rates. The PSC denied the request on July 15, which Willocks pointed out, gave plaintiff a reason to file an appeal on the denial, rather than a restraining order.
Willocks had to interrupt Hodge several times throughout the hearing to clarify the plaintiffs’ rights to file an appeal 30 days after a denial is issued. But Willocks’ words often seemed lost on Hodge, who seemed intent on including the appeal as part of the temporary restraining order.
“July 15 the PSC denied the petition, so you have 30 days to file an appeal,” Willocks said.
“That’s correct, but the appeal will take more time and Aug. 1, rates increase,” Hodge replied.
Willocks became increasingly frustrated as he tried to explain how the court is required to follow statute, and insinuated that by filing the temporary restraining order, the plaintiffs were skipping an entire step in the hearing process. Furthermore, Willocks questioned the reasoning behind the order, which was to show “irreparable harm” by the increasing LEAC rates – he said that monetary reasons alone will not suffice.
After Hodge called Hansen as his first witness, and asked her to read her WAPA bill aloud (along with other responses by the PSC), Willocks again became agitated. In a back-and-forth which went on for nearly an hour, Hodge asked Hansen to read the exhibits out loud on the stand without asking any significant questions.
“Don’t just have her read the documents, ask a specific question. The documents have already been admitted,” Willocks said, later adding “just reading the documents is not necessary since the Court has already admitted them and therefore, must read them.”
Both defense counsels—Samuel H. Hall Jr. representing WAPA, and Boyd Sprehn for the PSC—then cross-examined Hansen and tried to discredit her because she is an ex-officio member of the board (In WAPA’s objection to the previous petition, they stated that Hansen should be disqualified from filing the petition for that reason).
After the cross-examination, the hearing took a bizarre twist: Hodge then asked Willocks if the court could look at the case as an appeal, which caused Willocks to shake his head incredulously and made the entire defense team laugh.
“Your request to have this hearing as an appeal is denied,” Willocks said.
WAPA Executive Director Hugo Hodge Jr. then took the stand to break down typical charges on an invoice. He explained the difference between the “base rate” and LEAC. The base rate calculates typical funds for WAPA like payroll, with the exclusion of fuel, and LEAC is fuel and fuel-related costs.
Hugo Hodge said that 25 to 28 cents on the dollar go toward the base rate, and 72 to 75 cents go to the supplier. He added that WAPA couldn’t purchase fuel if there were no LEAC because there would be no mechanism to produce power.
Finally, after nearly four hours, the hearing came to a close, and Willocks informed the parties that he would give the plaintiffs until Friday to come up with reasonable case law to back up the motion for a temporary restraining order.
