[1]NOTE:
As provided in LFC policy, this report is intended only for use by the
standing finance committees of the legislature. The Legislative
Finance Committee does not assume responsibility for the accuracy of the information
in this report when used in any other situation.
Only the most recent
FIR version (in HTML & Adobe PDF formats) is available on the Legislative
Website. The Adobe PDF version includes
all attachments, whereas the HTML version does not. Previously issued FIRs and attachments may be obtained from the
LFC’s office in Suite 101 of the State Capitol Building North.
|
SPONSOR: |
Salazar |
DATE TYPED: |
2/5/02 |
HB |
HJM 69 |
||
|
SHORT TITLE: |
PRC Representation of Public Interest |
SB |
|
||||
|
|
ANALYST: |
Valenzuela |
|||||
APPROPRIATION
|
Appropriation
Contained |
Estimated
Additional Impact |
Recurring or Non-Rec |
Fund Affected |
||
|
FY02 |
FY03 |
FY02 |
FY03 |
|
|
|
|
|
NFI |
|
|
|
(Parenthesis
( ) Indicate Expenditure Decreases)
Legislative Finance Committee files
Public Regulation Commission
Office of the Attorney General
SUMMARY
Synopsis
of Bill
House Joint Memorial
69 requests the Public Regulation Commission revise its definition and application
in rate cases of the term “public interest” to reflect “consumer interest” to
ensure consumer concerns are represented and considered in these proceedings.
The joint memorial requires the PRC to report on its efforts before the
Legislative Finance Committee, during its annual budget hearing.
Significant
Issues
The intent of the joint memorial is to ensure
the PRC utility division focus attention on the interest of consumers.
Currently, the PRC attempts to balance the interests of public utility
companies with those of the ratepayers. An implicit message in the joint
memorial is that consumer interests have not been represented.
Deregulation of the electricity (delayed until
2007) and telecommunications markets has spawned concern for consumers about
fairness and equity in the promulgation of rules. Complicated issues such as
stranded costs, the impact of wholesale power markets, interconnection
agreements, the quality of service standards, etc., have become the primary and
debatable policy issues, as opposed
to the rate-of-return analyses performed
pre-deregulation. The joint memorial notes that individual consumers, who have
engaged in the rulemaking process, could be at a substantial disadvantage in
presenting its case against the utility company’s experienced legal counsel.
The Attorney General’s Office states that its
statutory authority is to represent consumer interests before the PRC.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS
HJM 69 does not carry
an appropriation and should not have an administrative or fiscal impact on the
PRC or Attorney General’s Office.
OTHER SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES
Consumers may be
unaware that the AG Office represents its interests, which may result from confusion
over the appropriate agency to contact regarding complaints or concerns about
utility policy. Both the PRC and the Attorney General have offices that receive
consumer complaints and concerns.
POSSIBLE QUESTIONS
Does the utility division staff consider only formal testimony of
individual consumers or does it consider relevant consumer complaints or
concerns about utility companies or policy in its formulation of its filings to
the PRC?
How does the Attorney General receive consumer concerns to understand their
impact on utility issues before the PRC and how does it represent those
concerns? Does AG staff meet with consumers on a routine basis? Does the AG
staff meet only with consumer special interest groups ?
[1]Begin typing on the * in replace mode. Do not add or delete spaces.