Related Articles

A groundswell of consumer and investor sentiment is growing against the repeal of the Public Utilities Holding Company Act (PUHCA), proposed in the latest Senate version of the energy bill.

PUHCA has long served to protect ratepayers from potential abuses of electric and gas holding companies by bringing companies that own at least 10 percent of a public utility in more than one state under the control of the Securities and Exchange Commission. The IBEW is opposed to repeal of the 1935 law, which it considers a longstanding consumer protection that prevents the industry from becoming dominated by a few huge electricity conglomerates. It would lead not only to more industry mergers but also leave states without the authority to monitor interstate holding company activities.

For these reasons, highly respected credit rating service Standard and Poors concluded in a research paper on published in February that PUHCA repeal would result in a "deterioration in credit quality for utilities whose corporate parents have an appetite for greater risk if PUHCA is repealed."

State public utility commissioners have also argued against the repeal of PUHCA, as have consumer groups like Public Citizen and U.S. Public Interest Research Group.

"The energy bill promotes consolidation of utility ownership and monopoly control while pretending to be a bill that encourages utility competition," said Wenonah Hauter of Public Citizen. "In fact it strips away virtually all electric ratepayer protections and takes control over public utilities out of the reach of regulators. No responsible legislator should support such a bill."

The IBEW last week was among several consumer and conservation groups to host a Capitol Hill press briefing on the energy bill.

The bill, written solely by Senate Energy Committee Chairman Pete Domenici, is the last of several energy bills to come out of Congress since the Bush Administration proposed an overhaul to the nations energy policy in 2001. Since then, the legislation has gotten bogged down in fights over drilling in the Artic National Wildlife Refuge and most recently, whether to grant immunity from prosecution to producers of the gas additive MTBE. Last November, a House-Senate compromise billwith a massive $31 billion price tagcould not overcome Senate opposition from both sides of the aisle.

Senator Domenicis bill, written in seclusion without bipartisan cooperation, seeks to lower the cost of the legislation to $14 billion. But from an IBEW perspective, the worst aspect of this new bill is PUHCA repeal.

"Why would we repeal this type of protection after what we have seen in corporate America?" said International Representative Jim Hunter, who represented the IBEW at the event. "Enron, WorldCom, Qwest and others have proven that more protections are needed, not less."

Hunter said lifting PUHCA would encourage large companies to pursue ownership of utility conglomerates for profit only, not a motivation to deliver a safe and reliable service.

"IBEW members observe the industry from the inside and its not a pretty picture," Hunter said. "Since the advent of deregulation, we have seen massive reductions in the workforce and a corresponding reduction in reliability. As a consequence, the workforce of tomorrow is not being trained and more catastrophes like the Northeast blackout are inevitable."

Anna Aurilio, from U.S. PIRG, characterized the legislation as a treasure trove of giveaways for industry special interests. "There isnt an ordinary member of the public thats clamoring for this bill," she said. "If anyone changes their vote, well know who theyre listening to."

Hunter quoted Rep. John Dingell (D-Michigan) who said of the last version of the energy bill, The bill was written in secret and kept from the light of day. And like lifting the lid of a garbage can, you get a strong smell. This bill is still garbage, only in a different can."