Examination of the functions of the Public Utilities Commission

Aug 30, 2017 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
Having written in two letters about the issues that could fall within the responsibility of the PUC, let us examine the capability of it to handle strong regulation. The other regulatory bodies of the region are structured with divisions to handle internal administration, public relations and complaints and regulations as a minimum (see the websites of OUR of Jamaica, RIC of Trinidad and Tobago, IRC of Dominica, Fair Trading Commission of Barbados, PUC of Belize and others around the region for their organization charts), Guyana’s PUC is structured differently.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The divisions shown in the matrix above are basically those employed by any effective and efficient public utility regulatory body. There might be a few name changes here or there but the organization remains the same. As can be seen from the above Guyana’s PUC has no regulation division, as such, with a head and a staff complement. There are two financial analysts and two engineers employed, but they do not form part of a division of the body.
Seems strange that a regulatory body should not have a regulation division staffed with financial analysts, engineers and economists. Regulation should be the essence of the PUC’s existence and to not have a regulations division is to ignore the reason for its very existence. On the contrary, its existence seems to be predicated on resolving complaints which are growing by the day and which caused the Commission to reprimand the utilities recently for the growing number of complaints. A regulatory body is there to regulate the utilities and to ensure that the causes for the complaints are removed. Multiplying complaints is a sad commentary on the efficiency and effectiveness on the regulation emanating from the Commission.
Like Guyana, OUR regulates electricity water and sewerage and telecommunications. OUR has a staff complement of approximately 50 persons. RIC regulates electricity and water and sewerage and it has a staff complement of 39.Guyana has approximately 12. Believe me, all the others in the matrix above have greater staff complements than the PUC of Guyana. There is no regulations division, no library filled with books, orders of other Commissions across the region and electrical paraphernalia where the public could enter and learn something about how electricity works.
There are no consumer committees around the regions to bring to the attention of the Commission the electricity woes being experienced in those areas here even though the PUC is charged with regulating electricity, telecommunications and water. A staff of 12 or thereabout cannot adequately carry out the functions of such a body. Someone needs to recognise that sad fact and ensure that the Commission is given the wherewithal to step up its regulations of those public utilities.
Further, contrary to almost all but one of the regulatory bodies of the region (PUC of Belize), the PUC of Guyana is headed by an Executive Chairman. In that position the person is responsible for the day to day functioning of the body as well chairing the body of Commissioners. Commissioners of such regulatory bodies are responsible for making all regulatory decisions and should be insulated from the utterances, recommendations and decisions of the executive.
In Guyana, like Belize, the head of the executive is the Chairman and, as such, there can be no distinction between the utterances of the Chairman as the head executive and the Chairman as head of the Commission. Whatever the Chairman says as head of the executive can be construed as coming from the Commission itself. That is why there were so many court cases for bias filed against the Commission by the regulated utilities. The combination of the responsibilities of the Chairman and Chief Executive always prove to be very toxic.
In addition, in Guyana, the PUC holds public consultations which it calls “hearings”. In the first place a hearing is a quasi-judicial process where witnesses give their testimony under oath. That has long ceased to be the case for the PUC. Consultations are held where witnesses testimony are not taken under oath and over which the Executive Chairman presides. In every other jurisdiction I know (except Belize) such consultations are presided by someone other than a Commissioner and Commissioners participate only by listening to the proceedings. The reason for this is simple.
Whatever the Commissioners utter at such consultations can be taken as coming from the Commission. Commissioners are generally silent when in the public. In some jurisdictions they are not even allowed to speak to each other on matters before the Commission outside of Commission meetings. Guyana had its fair share of the toxicity of Chairman and Commissioners making statements at hearings or consultations in the number of times it was cited for bias based on statements made by Commissioners at hearings or consultations. In my opinion, the PUC’s consultations should be chaired by someone other than the Chairman and the Commissioners should not be allowed to ask questions. They should be there merely as observers of the process and for note taking.
In addition, for some reason the powers that be in Guyana think that an Attorney-at-Law makes the best Executive Chairman and so all of the Chairmen of the PUC, except the first, have been Attorneys-at-Law. There are three other regulatory bodies in the Caribbean with Attorneys-at-Law as Chairman, i.e. URCA of the Bahamas, IRC of Dominica and Fair Trading Commission of Barbados. In these cases, the Chairmen are not Executive Chairmen and they are supported by Executive Directors who are professional regulators.
While the Chairman of URCA in the Bahamas is an Attorney, his deputy is the most respected regulator in the Caribbean. Trinidad has an economist as Chairman. Belize has an engineer as Chairman. Jamaica has a professional regulator as Chairman. In the jurisdictions with Attorneys as Chairmen, professional regulators, with standing in the region as such, function as Executive Directors. In no other case is the Executive Chairman an Attorney-at –Law.
Lance McCaskey

---

---