|
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: Bob Allen
The Florida Public Service Commission (PSC) must remain strong and engaged in all decisions regarding utilities. Power generation must be based upon overall system needs and low-cost competitive pricing for all consumers. Telephone rates should recognize that many customers do not require extensive long distance services and therefore, should not be dependent upon long distance services to achieve fair, low-cost, basic service. The Governor’s veto of the compromise phone legislation, reached by members of the telecommunications industries and members of the Legislature, allows us to ensure the Public Service Commission’s role and the principle of affordable, basic service for all seniors.
|
|
|
|
|
| Supports electric deregulation that specifically benefits the consumer. |
|
|
|
|
| Opposes an increase in basic consumer phone rates. |
|
|
|
|
Candidate Response: Dwight Seigler
The candidate was invited to participate in this voter guide, but did not respond by the publishing deadline.
|
|
|
|
|
| Supports electric deregulation that specifically benefits the consumer. |
|
|
|
|
| Opposes an increase in basic consumer phone rates. |
|
|
|
|
|