PUC=PU

I signed on to Professor Riesman’s PUC complaint (see “Public Utilities Commission gets . . .,” Portland Phoenix, April 19) when I read the handout we got with our electric bill. I thought it both presumptuous, speculative, and perhaps a bit behind the curve considering the PUC is implementing a treaty which hasn’t even been ratified by the Senate and is spouting climate theories that even the original proponents have now backed away from — see the recent NASA report ‘blaming’ other factors besides carbon dioxide.

While I relish the warming of our climate — something I looked forward to 26 years ago in selecting Maine as a place to move to, I realize there are many reasons for it and many distinguished climatologists dismiss the speculative science and mathematical models of Greens as bunk!

To have the PUC distribute what is becoming a theory that has fallen into disrepute in the scientific community violates its fundamental mission of informing the consumer by presenting verifiable factual evidence. The PUC has no business stepping into the swirling scientific controversy surrounding climate change, let alone making a unilateral decision to enforce the Kyoto Protocol on their own. I suggest they set an example by holding their collective breath, and free us from the unnecessary carbon dioxide contained in it.

Frank J. Heller, MPA

Public Policy Analyst

Brunswick

 

No comp-arison

I want to commend the Portland Phoenix for Jessica Kilby’s piece on workers’ comp in the April 26 issue. It is the best discussion of the legislation and relevant background that I have read to date. You are correct that the issue boils down to the Churchill case and whether that case is limited to its facts. Imposing liability for the aggravation of a pre-existing condition is not a novel concept in the law. In the civil law it is referred to as the “Eggshell” plaintiff doctrine or, expressed more simply, you take your plaintiffs as you find them. Based on the legislation that passed, those cases which involve an aggravation or acceleration of a prior injury or condition, even non-occupational, will continue to be stacked or combined as was the rule of Churchill. Although the Law Court indicates in the footnote that it does not intend for Churchill to be read so narrowly, that is a view which flows from their interpretation of statutory language, not necessarily from a current policy and cost perspective.

In any event, I was somewhat surprised (no offense) because I felt as if I could have been reading a column from the Maine Lawyers Review. Understanding that may not have actually been the target audience you were looking to impress, you are to be commended for having written such a balanced and weighty discussion of the issues. I appreciate the Phoenix dedicating space to this important and, at times, mind-numbing subject.

Jon Fitzgerald

Falmouth

---