Though the governor appoints its members, the Public Service Commission, which regulates electric, natural gas, water and telecommunications utilities, is considered an arm of the Legislature. This originated as a legal theory to protect the PSC's presumed independence, but it makes no sense now that the commissioners are no longer elected. In practical terms, it means that legislative leaders exert too much influence.

The latest example is a letter Jim King, R-Jacksonville, the incoming Senate president, sent last month to members of the nine-member nominating council that will shortly name three candidates for each of two expiring terms on the PSC. King suggested in effect that the council dump Commissioner Terry Deason in favor of Kevin Neal, the PSC's recently appointed executive deputy director. King also recommended that the council renominate Commissioner Michael A. Palecki, who is in his first term.

King said of Palecki that "I have found him to be very pro business, pro competition and very well informed." But as Deason has already served two full terms, King ventured, the likelihood of Gov. Jeb Bush's reappointing him "is slim."

King reminded the council that Neal is a former lobbyist for Bush, "and when you combine his political skill with his now firmly entrenched knowledge of issues, I think it is a foregone conclusion that he would do a fantastic job as commissioner."

King, reacting to criticism after the story broke in the Palm Beach Post, says he now agrees that he shouldn't have sent such a letter. He said it had been his habit since 1986 to write recommendations for anyone who asks, "assuming a margin of acceptability," but understands now that "there is a world of difference between being anything else and the presiding officer of a chamber." He deserves credit for admitting a mistake. But one wonders: Can the nominating council now unring the bell?

King's letter followed one sent July 22 by Sen. Walter "Skip" Campbell Jr., D-Tamarac, the Democratic minority's point man on utility issues, bluntly warning the PSC against adopting a proposed rule, which the investor-owned utilities oppose, that would make it easier for third parties to bid on providing them with electricity from new power plants.

"This is a time for caution, not foolhardiness," Campbell wrote to PSC Chair Lila Jaber three days after a PSC workshop on the rule. "To that end, any rulemaking that has the potential to substantially change the way the electricity supply needs are governed should be given due consideration by the Legislature." What that letter really meant, some PSC observers say, is that the Florida-based power companies need not fear for the survival of their shared monopoly.

What's wrong with all this meddling? Simply that the Legislature is historically cozy with the utilities and the PSC ought not to be. The PSC's vulnerability owes to the fact that the Senate president and House speaker nominate all nine members of the nominating council. One of President John McKay's aides chairs the council at present; Speaker Tom Feeney's right-hand man, Paul Hawkes, is a council member, as are two sitting and two former legislators. With utility money constantly ranking among the largest sources of special-interest contributions, there is simply too much incentive for the legislative leaders to expect the council to help them curry favor with the utilities.

Florida would be better off to scrap the nominating council and let the governor take full credit or full blame for the quality of his PSC appointees and the results of their decisions. But it boggles the imagination that the Legislature would ever agree.

Back to Opinion

Contact the Times | Privacy Policy
Standard of Accuracy | Terms, Conditions & Copyright

From the Times
Opinion page