There is no doubt about the purpose of the state Public
Utilities Commission, established early in the 20th Century at the
height of California’s
”
robber baron
”
era featuring out-of-control corporate titans like the Southern
Pacific Railroad and Crocker Bank.
There is no doubt about the purpose of the state Public Utilities Commission, established early in the 20th Century at the height of California’s “robber baron” era featuring out-of-control corporate titans like the Southern Pacific Railroad and Crocker Bank.
From the day its first members took their oath, the PUC’s raison d’etre has been to keep electricity, natural gas, water and telecommunications rates at the lowest level consistent with “reasonable” corporate profits.
Historically, California gets nothing but trouble whenever the PUC slips in its devotion to this principle, as when its members plumped for electricity deregulation during the mid-1990s, creating conditions that set up the energy crunch of 2000 and 2001.
Now there are strong signs the PUC is once again straying from its consumerist purpose and will remain anti-consumer for at least three more years, more likely five or six.
The move to favor corporations over their customers began while Democrat Gray Davis was governor, when he gave former Southern California Edison Co. kingpin Michael Peevey a five-year term on the commission. Far from trying to overturn that Davis move when he took over the governor’s office, Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger reinforced it by shuffling the PUC deck and making Peevey the commission president.
When it comes to electricity, this assured that the fox would watch the henhouse for years to come.
But no one could be sure the PUC’s favoritism of corporate profits over consumer pocketbooks would extend beyond electricity – until this spring, when Peevey voted with a brand-new Schwarzenegger appointee to overturn a cell phone customers “bill of rights” the commission had approved last year.
It’s not as if the reversed regulations were onerous for cell phone carriers: All they demanded was that cell phone bills be printed in large enough type for most people to read, that all charges be explained in plain language, that consumers get 30 days to cancel new contracts rather than the 15 days most providers now allow and that customers could opt out of contracts if their terms were changed.
Pretty simple stuff, all of that, most already required for many other kinds of goods and services.
But too much for corporate supporters like Peevey and fellow Davis appointee Susan Kennedy, once chief of staff to the ousted governor and a major helper in his prolific efforts to raise campaign dollars from big business.
She claimed to worry that small providers could be driven out of the state by the rules. What small providers? With the merger of Cingular and AT&T Wireless, only five significant cell companies remain in California, although some smaller outfits still act as resellers of their services.
Kennedy and Peevey were joined in dumping the consumerist rules by new Commissioner Dian Grueneich, Schwarzenegger’s first PUC appointee. Not an auspicious beginning as consumer advocates saw it. With the threesome of Kennedy, Peevey and Grueneich dominating decisions, it’s almost a certainty that corporate concerns will get a sympathetic ear at the PUC for years to come.
The cell phone vote dismayed Democratic state Sen. Debra Bowen of Redondo Beach, former head of legislative committees regulating the cell companies. “This protects them at the expense of millions of cell phone users who are sick and tired of dealing with poor service, deceptive advertising, dropped calls and hidden fees,” she said. “Everybody has a horror story about their carrier, so it’s pretty disheartening to see one of the most important consumer protections created by the PUC in the past few years get dismantled in record time.”
Disheartening, maybe. Surprising, no. For first Davis and now Schwarzenegger have consistently placed more of a premium on the interests of the corporations kicking money into their campaign coffers than those of the individual voters who put them in office.
So why be surprised if their appointees carry out identical priorities, even in a quasi-judicial agency like the PUC whose members are supposed to be completely independent?
Tom Elias is author of the bestselling book “The Burzynski Breakthrough: The Most Promising Cancer Treatment and the Government’s Campaign to Squelch It.” His email address is [email protected]
