|
Question
In recent years the Florida legislature has considered a number of proposals that would alter the regulation of public utilities and benefit service providers at the expense of service consumers. How would you protect Florida consumers from unnecessary increases in their electric and basic phone bills?
AARP Response
The 2002 legislature passed legislation that would have increased consumer’s basic phone rates by as much as $8 per month. This legislation was vetoed by the Governor at the urging on AARP and other consumer groups.
Supporters of this legislation claimed it would stimulate competition in the local phone services and ultimately benefit consumers. The claim was based on the faulty idea that local phone rates are being subsidized by other services offered by local phone service companies. The bill was supposed to correct this subsidy problem.
AARP disputes that local service is subsidized and offers evidence to prove the point. (see AARP publication -- Current Issues in the Pricing of Telecommunications Services). AARP further challenged supposed consumer protections that were added to the bill. There was no consumer protection in the bill that would have offset the massive phone rate increases it would have led to.
Electricity: In the hope of encouraging lower prices, higher service quality and greater innovation, lawmakers across the country are considering whether and how to restructure the electric industry to allow consumers to purchase electricity from competing suppliers rather than from the traditional regulated monopoly structure. The Governor’s 2020 Energy Commission is considering restructuring in Florida.
The extent to which implementation of retail competition benefits residential consumers is unclear. Benefits in the form of lower rates are not guaranteed to residential ratepayers, who are at a disadvantage since they do not purchase enough electricity to be as attractive to competitors as industrial customers. If the outcome of restructuring is left entirely to the marketplace, residential consumers are likely to be the last class of customers to benefit if they receive any benefits at all.
If the electric industry in Florida is restructured, safeguards should be adopted that ensure just, reasonable and affordable rates and high-quality service for residential customers under retail competition. The legislature should ensure that residential ratepayers receive equitable and simultaneous benefits, including rate reductions, equal access and better service, from retail competition.
|
|
|
|
|
| Supports electric deregulation that specifically benefits the consumer. |
|
 |
|
|
| Opposes an increase in basic consumer phone rates. |
|
 |
|
|
Candidate Response: Larry Cretul
The Public Service Commission is charged with the responsibility of assuring the interests of the citizens of Florida are protected. The Public Service Commission, not by the legislature, should settle rate decisions. The legislature should be used in the capacity of advisors, however the final decision in matters of utilities should be left to the Public Service Commission.
|
|
|
|
|
| Supports electric deregulation that specifically benefits the consumer. |
|
|
|
|
| Opposes an increase in basic consumer phone rates. |
|
|
|
|
Candidate Response: Perry C. McGriff Jr.,
For people living on fixed income with little margin for error in paying their monthly bills, it is crucial that we hold the line in what utility and cable companies can charge the public. I would look into senior discounts for households with residents over a certain age. Raising electrical rates to experiment with competition is anti-consumer. I have many concerns about the Governor’s electric utility deregulation task force and would fight to ensure that consumers come first in any deregulation debate. Along the same line, we must be sure that any changes to local phone rates must also have corresponding decrease in long distance rates and other services, such as call waiting and caller ID.
|
|
|
|
|
| Supports electric deregulation that specifically benefits the consumer. |
|
|
|
|
| Opposes an increase in basic consumer phone rates. |
|
|
|
|
|