Don't forget consumers at PUC

The Rocky

Sunday, February 17, 2008

House Bill 1227, which will keep the state Public Utilities Commission operating for another decade, should be routine legislation.

It should update rules that reflect technological advances in regulated industries since the last PUC extension. And it should repeal obsolete provisions - including the noxious doctrine of "regulated competition" that protects existing taxi companies at the expense of consumers.

We'll deal with the taxi licensing provisions later. The much greater concern, however, is that HB 1227 would reduce consumer protection from unnecessarily high energy rates. It would do this by expanding - we'd say diluting - the mission of the state Office of Consumer Counsel and Utility Consumers' Board.

These entities were created to represent residents, small business owners and farmers in rate challenges against utilities and during regulatory hearings. The consumer counsel has been the only official advocate for ratepayer interests in these proceedings. During its two-decade history, the counsel claims to have directly saved consumers $130 million.

As now written, HB 1227 would require the counsel and the board to consider equally "economic, social and environmental" interests in dealings with the PUC - not simply matters of price and access, as they have in the past.

It's not as if environmental interests aren't already heard at the commission. Green groups are highly motivated, well-funded and organized. They make their opinions known and provide plenty of sophisticated analysis to back them up. Their views get far more exposure than those of old-fashioned consumer advocates dedicated to keeping ratepayers from being ripped off. That's why the Office of Consumer Counsel's current mandate is so important. If it won't look out for the economic interests of ratepayers, we're not sure who will.

The proposed law is an invitation to turn the consumer counsel into another advocate for renewable energy even when it's not cost competitive - as if there weren't enough articulate voices already making that case.

Jim Greenwood, the consumer counsel's executive director, insists that any expansion of powers would not change his focus from protecting consumers' pocketbooks. (He also told us that his office was not involved in drafting the bill.)

A future director or new board members might view matters differently, however. With HB 1227 on the books, the voice of ratepayers concerned about the size of their energy bills will be muted; there will be fewer institutional checks to prevent those bills from surging.

To its credit, however, HB 1227 would repeal "regulated competition," which has allowed current cab companies from preventing new rivals from entering the Denver market since 1995. Unfortunately, that still would not truly open the marketplace.

Current operators that hope to block new entrants would have to "prove [to the PUC] that issuance of [a new taxi] certificate would be detrimental to the public interest." For years, taxi operators have successfully argued that allowing new cabbies would reduce service or make it unprofitable for drivers to stay in business. Why wouldn't a similar line succeed even with a shift in the burden of proof?

The PUC's role should be that of protecting the public. Ensure that taxi operators pass safety regulations and provide proof of insurance. Otherwise, willing cabbies should be free to hit the streets.