Put RIC to work or else...

THE EDITOR: In one of his occasional pronouncements since assuming office, Public Utilities Minister Robert Le Hunte admitted his frustration when faced with a failure of our public utilities to deliver services in a satisfactory manner.

He also made the point that our utilities face challenges, many of which are rooted in the bureaucratic practices of the public service within which, presumably, they are made to operate.

Le Hunte does not have far to go in order to find the “root cause” of the frustration about which he complains. It springs from a need to debunk certain long deep-seated misunderstandings which have coloured policy, thus leading to a misconception in handling of public utilities in TT. Thus, the idea has become traditional that use of the word “public,” in reference to a public utility, implies State-owned” with the connotation that subsidisation from the public purse is to be expected.

This is not so. Indeed, the classical description of a public utility, whether State-owned or privately owned, is a “business affected with a public interest,” the emphasis being on “business” – the implication being that such an entity is normally expected to pay its way while serving all “comers” without discrimination, and in an efficient and cost-effective manner and this within the context of a properly functioning regulatory framework. Where is this? Here in TT, no doubt due to the misconceptions to which reference has been made, we are faced with the ludicrous situation of our two publicly-owned “designated” public utilities — T&TEC and WASA — no doubt due to their State- owned disposition, being made to go to the Treasury cap-in-hand for as long as 30 years, expecting to leave with their (weighty) “begging bowls,” rather than having their rates and charges adjusted in accordance with the imperatives of providing their services based on an efficient cost-of-service environment.

It is therefore a disappointment that all governments, without exception, have failed to honour the fundamentals underlying the expected mechanisms statutorily ordained by the Regulated Industries Commission Act (Act No 26 of 1998) which was intended to serve not only as a replacement for the Public Utilities Commission as a rate-making entity by acting with alacrity when the need arises, but also, inter alia, as a consumer-oriented watchdog.

It will be recalled that the major reason for replacing the PUC was the ingrained tendency for the machinery of the PUC to become bogged down with lengthy “legal ramifications of a matter” to the exclusion of fundamental socio-economic considerations, thus leading to high costs for legal representation being incurred.

A perception was also created that managements of its client utilities were “on trial.”

It is now clear that after almost 20 years, the RIC has abjectly failed to deliver on the high hopes expected. Indeed, apart from occasional consumer public relations announcements respecting standards of service, there appears to be no public awareness of the existence of the RIC, the comparatively highly paid staff of which may be engaged in theoretical posturing rather than in pursuing the concrete fundamentals which would not only lift the burden from the Minister of Finance but would also allow the utilities to operate efficiently within an environment of relative freedom under a regime of sound pre-set regulatory practices.

Notwithstanding the tardiness by which it functioned, the PUC nevertheless did perform. Le Hunte now has within his charge an entity which seems to be a non-performer. It is therefore up to the minister to either set the RIC to work (or else).

ERROL OC CUPID
, Tacarigua