When it comes to getting a fair shake from the Public Service Commission, many Floridians feel that the rules are stacked in favor of the phone, electric and water companies seeking rate increases. Indeed they are, according to a new study by a consumer organization. In particular, the PSC routinely allows utilities to stop the public from seeing documents that could help them fight higher rates.
The study by Common Cause Florida found that "in comparison to other states, Florida too routinely allows utilities to withhold documents from the public record . . ." and once a document is stamped confidential, "it never becomes a part of the public record."
For example, in a current case in which TECO Energy is seeking to recover rising fuel costs from its customers, the PSC granted TECO confidentiality in 14 different orders. So a key piece of information - how much TECO pays one of its own subsidiaries to transport coal - is not available to the public. That becomes a problem, the study points out, when trying to determine if TECO is "ignoring opportunities to spare its customers unnecessary and excessive charges. . . ."
A similar issue arose late last year when the PSC granted telephone companies an unprecedented rate hike on residential phone service. The increase was supposed to be offset by an equal savings on in-state long-distance calls, but documents related to that issue were closed by the PSC. According to testimony, those documents would reveal that residential phone customers will be receiving less than half the savings promised.
"Without the public having oversight, confidence in decisions the PSC makes comes into question," said Ben Wilcox, one of the report's authors.
Other states do a better job than Florida at scrutinizing confidentiality requests in rate cases. Here, the PSC grants them routinely. A company might have a legitimate reason for closing certain documents to keep competitors from seeing sensitive information, but the PSC's rules are so broad that "99.9 percent of the requests for confidentiality by utility companies are granted," the study estimated.
About the only way the public interest can be fairly represented in such decisions is to encourage an independent review of each confidentiality request. Whatever the process, it should be the utilities' responsibility to prove they are due an exemption to the public records law.
The Common Cause study spells out the problem. Now what Florida residents need are some elected officials who are offended by the public's inability to be fully informed in utility rate cases and who have the courage to act.
