charging that Coakley is unfairly targeting the company. "The center of the storm happened to hit the Unitil service

areas. It could have happened to anyone."

On Friday, Coakley filed a recommendation with the Department of Public Utilities that included the proposed

fines as well as other measures the New Hampshire-based company should undertake to be better prepared for

storms, such as making sure tree limbs near power lines are cut back. The fines should not result in higher

electric rates, Coakley has said.

Sullivan said he agrees the company needs to do a better job. But he said he believes the fines could be put to

better use if the state forced Unitil to spend the money on improvements rather than having the money go directly

into the state's coffers. He said the financial hit "will slow down the process of getting this company where it needs

to be for customer service."

Emily LaGrassa, a Coakley spokeswoman, said the only mechanism an attorney general has to hold a power

company accountable is to ask the utilities department to impose a fine paid to the general fund. "There's no

mechanism in place to return the money to ratepayers or to make the company use the money for certain things,"

LaGrassa said.

However, she said Coakley also has asked the department to order the company to upgrade its system to prevent

prolonged outages from reoccurring.

Sullivan, whose union represents workers from several companies, including about 100 Unitil employees, said he

would like to meet with Coakley to discuss his proposal. Coakley's spokeswoman said that she is willing to meet

with him. Coakley's recommendations came nearly six months after a Dec. 11 ice storm left all of Unitil's 28,000

customers in the Fitchburg and Lunenburg area without power, some for as long as two weeks. Although other

parts of the state served by different electric companies also experienced outages, the public utilities department

investigated only Unitil, deeming restoration took too long.

The investigation concluded the company had a fractured response plan, a poor maintenance program, and failed

to communicate properly with customers and emergency officials.

The company yesterday referred to the statement it issued on Friday, which argued the fines were without legal

basis, would not benefit customers, and were arbitrary, based more on public anger than on facts.