A STATEMENT on Friday, attributed to Tony Muna, executive director of CUC, claimed the following: Besides the initial $6 million contract, Muna said CUC incurred no additional costs for the Aggreko deal. “They’re paid in full. And whatever we agreed upon, that’s what we paid for,” he said.
It was further revealed, for the first time in public print, that Aggreko had installed EIGHTEEN generation units. The original contract called for TEN units — and $6 million in lease rent. Did Mr. Muna lie when he made that statement on Friday (“no additional costs”)? CUC is a government operated PUBLIC utility of grave concern to the citizens of the NMI. Its service is a basic life necessity; it is paid for by the public — and that public has a RIGHT TO KNOW how it is operated, from top to bottom. Therefore, I ask again, and based on the below quoted contracted conditions: Did Mr. Muna lie when he made that statement on Friday?
A continuing, and now questionable, “state of emergency” declaration is not a reason for this government to continue its “cover-up” of the real costs of the Aggreko contract. Now that the contract is finished, all those questions that have for too long gone unanswered MUST now be answered. It’s called “accountability” and it is the RESPONSIBILITY of any government. This letter in no way is to belie the fact that Aggreko DID accomplish its end goal, but that does NOT justify hiding its real cost.
Responsible parties within the Legislature must now use their authority and yield to the people’s right to know and seek out, force out if needed, every transaction made by CUC and the NMI government concerning Aggreko and power on Saipan — and show HOW the expenses incurred by this contract has affected power rates, not only on Saipan, but on ALL islands served by CUC in spite of a lack of service by Aggreko to other islands.
Contract No. 12305-Q001-SD; (CUC) No. CUC-PG-08-C016, dated June 19, 2008:
1) Called for the initial installation of TEN (10) one-megawatt generator units (with two additional units as “spares”). Since eighteen (18) units were eventually installed, was the original contract modified in any way? Was a separate, as yet unpublished, contract entered into? Did the additional 8 units add any cost to the lease rent of $6 million for the 52 week period? Please clarify the difference between the $6 million “lease rent” for one year and the guaranteed minimum “energy charge” (at .05 cents per kwh) of $84,000 per week.
2) Section 2.3 states that Customs examination and all import and export clearances as well as governmental statutory charges shall be paid for by CUC. WHAT were the charges for these services? Additionally, WHAT was the cost in time, labor and inter-departmental involvement of EPA’s inquiry and the responses made to EPA regarding the use of these non-CCA compliant units?
3) Section 2.4 states that all duties, levies, taxes and other charges in relation to the importation and exportation of the plant, equipment, tools, spare parts, consumables, testing and monitoring equipment that are in accordance with the laws rules and regulations of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands and arise out of the performance of this contract are for account of CUC. WHAT were the charges incurred for any of these provisions?
4) Section 4.1 states that CUC shall pay to Aggreko as “energy charge” an amount of (U.S. dollars) $0.0500 per kilowatt hour subject to a “guaranteed minimum weekly offtake” of 1.68 gigawatt hours. This rate translates to a “guaranteed MINIMUM” weekly charge of $84,000 (at 1,680,000 kwh x $0.05). WERE these charges paid for by CUC according to contract specifications as outlined in point 5 below?
5) Section 4.3 states that for purposes of this contract a “month” shall consist of 28 days. It further states that the FIRST energy charge for the first 4 weeks of operation in the amount of $336,000 shall be paid “upfront, prior to mobilization” and, after payment of an additional 8-week, $772,000, “security” deposit, the second and subsequent payments shall be paid every “month” (FOUR weeks) thereafter. Aggreko will present invoices monthly and CUC will make the payments within 14 days thereafter. ALL such invoices for energy charges, showing the total amount of actual power produced and consumed, and any CUC payments made thereto should be made available immediately to the office of the public auditor in accordance with section 10.17 of the same contract. HOW much did CUC pay in “energy charges” during the 52 week contract service period?
6) Section 5.3 states that CUC shall prepare the site and all civil works for the erection and operation of the plant and shall undertake those works and the provision of 24-hour guards at CUC expense. HOW much was the site preparation expense and the cost of the “24-hour guards” for one year?
7) Section 5.4 states that CUC shall supply a main earthing connection terminal point for Aggreko to connect the plant at CUC’s cost. HOW much did this cost?
8) Section 6.2 states that CUC shall obtain at its own cost all necessary visas and work permits during any period when Aggreko employees are required to work in the NMI. HOW much did any required work visas and permits cost?
9) Section 6.3 states that CUC shall supply SIX unskilled laborers during the mobilization and demobilization phases. For HOW long were ANY workers supplied by CUC during all phases of operation and HOW much did these personnel cost?
10) Section 6.5 states that CUC shall be responsible for disposal of used engine oil, drums and filters. The costs of the foregoing items and any additional costs are excluded from the service charges and shall be paid for by CUC. HOW much did these provisions cost CUC?
11) Section 7.1 states that all fuel, fuel storage and potable water for the plant shall be supplied and paid for by CUC. HOW much did these items cost?
12) Section 8.6 indemnifies Aggreko for ANY loss or damage incurred to the plant or any person(s) injury or property damage and CUC shall be accountable for any such claims. HAS CUC been held liable for ANY such claims of injury or damage to persons or property, including workers compensation insurance, and, if so, HOW much did this cost CUC?
13) WERE any additional cost items incurred by CUC that were or could be attributed to operation of the Aggreko plant (such as equipment, trucks, personnel, spare parts, consumables, poles, lines, office personnel or paper clips and postage stamps)? If so, HOW much did these items cost?
It is time that CUC now accounts for the ACTUAL cost of the entire Aggreko contract. The people have a right to know.
DR. THOMAS D. ARKLE JR.San Jose, Tinian
