|
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: Sandra L Murman
Utilities are vital to Florida’s economy and consumers. The Legislature has required telecommunication companies to transform from a monopoly environment to one that is more competitive. As we continue to transition to competition, we need to look at the pricing mechanism of utilities. The Legislature has worked on achieving a balanced approached that protects consumers and allows competition to flourish. There are some good examples of how to protect the consumer such as, lowering the income thresholds for Life-line subscribership, which protects more seniors on fixed incomes, and lowering in-state long-distance rates though I do oppose an increase in basic phone rates as it hurts seniors on fixed incomes.
|
|
|
|
|
| Supports electric deregulation that specifically benefits the consumer. |
|
|
|
|
| Opposes an increase in basic consumer phone rates. |
|
|
|
|
|